| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Vasectomy Memo edit
Several sparklingly new or little-used SPAs or/and IPs have been skirting the line of WP policies by in bad-faith reproducing the argument Rabb put forth in his memo (not legislation, a memo!) as actual scare-mongering of enforced sterilization. The memo, at https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=H&SPick=20210&cosponId=36286 (left URL whole on purpose as doc ID might change), clearly contains passages such as its opening lines:
"public debate around abortion, contraception and related reproductive matters has thrust government into the center of restrictions on the bodily autonomy of women and girls. Rarely is [...] the personal responsibility of cisgender men [...] with little focus on their responsibility as inseminators"
which I feel are fair to neutrally describe the spirit of the memo "Rabb's memo draws attention to the double-standard of regulating women's bodies via legislation" as I did in the mainspace. It is also not synth to say it is in reaction to Texas's state law, when he says
"As long as state legislatures continue to restrict the reproductive rights of cis women, trans men and non-binary people, there should be laws that address the responsibility of men who impregnate them"
Further, he makes it clear he is joking and indulges in absurdism with the surfeit of sex, penis, and vasectomy wordplay in
"As we head toward climax on this heated discourse around this delicate matter, we should come together to address it with surgical precision. We must also commit to mending the social fabric being sliced up by bitter acrimony."
Lastly, he ends with jokes and again in plain words calls it a "double-standard" with
"What’s good for the goose is good for the gander! In the spirit of this popular axiom, I encourage my colleagues to take a gander at this forthcoming bill that seeks to end this egregiously gendered double standard."
That's why I think "On October 2, 2021, Rabb authored a memo to all members of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives indicating that he will be introducing legislation to enforce reproductive responsibility among men. Rabb's memo draws attention to the double-standard of regulating women's bodies via legislation while the equivalent bill affecting cisgender men would seem absurd." is a better neutral description of the memo than the text that focuses on the specifics, couched as neutral, but obfuscating the obvious intent. JesseRafe (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not a neutral stance to reference an "equivalent" bill which is at best subjective. An "equivalent" bill would be requiring tubal litigation in women. The article itself should present neutral information, not the editor's interpretation of that information. The references are provided to direct the reader to the source information where they can draw their own interpretation. Any references interpreting Rabb's intent should be removed. I personally am appalled by the wasting of taxpayer resources on such idiocy, but to put that in the article would not be neutral. This should be reverted. ThunderHobo (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)