Talk:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 7 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article.

The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:

abortion
post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 June 2022.

Wikipedia

Abortion High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society / Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as High-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women's Health High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women's health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Mississippi High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Mississippi portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

NYTimes deep dive into how the case circulated within SCOTUS, based on various inside reports

Researchers attributed to a combination of more births...

The new section on infant mortality (more births) isn't obviously compatible with the previous section (more abortions) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/abortions-rose-roe-overturned-why-rcna181094

The number of abortions went up after Dobbs, not down. The birth rate and number of births also fell. Whatever the goals of the decision, it did not pan out.

Link: Unintended consequences#Types JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number of births is public and verifiable data. The birth rate did not meaningfully change because of the decision.

"In 2023, 3,596,017 births were registered in the United States, down 2% from 2022 (3,667,758) and 2021 (3,664,292) (Figure 1, Table 1)."

Link: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db507.htm

The number of abortions is harder to tell, but available data suggests the number of abortions didn't change or went up. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/upshot/abortion-bans-births-study.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing text under background

"On April 6, 2017, the nuclear option was used again, this time by a Republican majority led by Mitch McConnell, during thto extend the simple majority..."

It looks like something was erased between "the" and "to".

Whiskeyjack0 (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/magazine/roe-v-wade-christian-network.html JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The absurd irony of this decision is that of unintended consequences. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is or was?

The lead sentence of this article reads:

"Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which..." (emphasis added)

With which verb tense should we refer to cases like this? By "cases like this" I am referring to Supreme Court cases that (1) have been decided, and (2) have not been overruled. There does not appear to be any general consensus on this question. For example, at the time of writing, the lead sentences of the pages for District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago (two pivotal Second Amendment cases that are still good law) read:

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States."
"McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found..."

It seems obvious to me that pending cases (e.g., at the time of writing, United States v. Skrmetti and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton) should be referred to in the present tense ("is a pending United States Supreme Court case..."). And it seems equally obvious to me that overruled cases should be referred to in the past tense (e.g., Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey). But what about cases like Dobbs, that have been decided and have not been overruled?

Many thanks. Glad Tidings from New York (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally if the decision still holds then we should write it as present tense, while overturned ones are past tense. That assumes the noun in the lead sentence is the decision, not the case. Once the case is decided, that becomes past tense, even if that decision remains on place. Masem (t) 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]