Talk:Abortion in the District of Columbia

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Elizium23 in topic Terminology in articles on the 50 states


WikiProject iconWomen in Red: 2019
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project in 2019. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.

Medicaid edit

My understanding is that Medicaid-funded abortion is not available in D.C. Although the Hyde amendment prohibits federal funds for most abortion services, about 1/3 of states use locally-raised money for Medicaid abortion access. However D.C. is prohibited by federal law from doing so.

Maybe somebody can find reliable sources and update this article? -- M.boli (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Terminology in articles on the 50 states edit

Hi, I am placing this discussion here for visibility, although the actual wording does not appear in this article. The passage in question has been copy-pasted to all 50 states' "Abortion in XXX" articles (e.g. Abortion in Washington) as follows:

  • Anti-abortion advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child", and see the medical terms "embryo", "zygote", and "fetus" as dehumanizing. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of terms labeled as political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light. "Pro-choice" implies that the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life". The Associated Press encourages journalists to use the terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion".

Personally, I find this written more like a polemic essay rather than encyclopedic information. It's preachy and condescending to the reader, as if we need to meticulously inform them about the very terms which we invariably must refrain from using ourselves. Why is it necessary to launch into this discussion - and do it 50 times or more project-wide? Sure, it's extensively referenced, and that's fine, but its tone is decidedly unencyclopedic.

To me, it seems that the topic of these articles are the legal situation on the ground, not the terminology belonging to the pro- or anti-movements. Can we tighten this up and stick to the legal issues? Elizium23 (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply