Talk:Dawn Johnsen

References

The article has been tagged as needing references. Every statement in the stub I created comes from the first ext link, namely her faculty bio on the IU website. I see no point to adding multiple footnotes that all point to that source, which would then be listed in (indeed, would be the sole contents of) a new "References" section. Anyone who feels more comfortable with footnotes peppering the text can do so, however. JamesMLane t c 11:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Radical views on reproduction

Why is there no talk of Johnsen's radical views on reproduction on this page? For example, she is on record stating the following:

Mothers are Losers: “The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’”

Pregnant Women are Fetal Containers: “The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’”

Pregnancy equals Slavery: “Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.”LCP (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We can include quotations to reflect a bio subject's views, but certainly not with the kind of slanted, inaccurate, heavily POV characterizations you suggest. To take just your first example, she didn't say or imply that all mothers are losers. It's clear she's talking about women who choose not to become pregnant, and therefore use contraception, but who are among the tiny fraction for whom contraception fails. She's analogizing them to people who lose in a lottery. Her point is that such a chance event doesn't mean that the woman chose to become pregnant or consented to the pregnancy.

Many bio articles include a "Quotations" section, in which the verbatim quotations are presented, without editorial comment, and with a citation to a reliable source. If the section becomes too long, it can be shortened by moving many of the quotations to a Wikiquote article. Feel free to pursue that approach for any significant quotations for which you can cite a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 16:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

section on reproductive rights

The first part reads like a press release. Needs to be edited for NPOV. Instead of just this recounting of the bickering about the footnote, can someone reproduce the text of the footnote in question?Teaforthetillerman (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't reproduce the entire text of the footnote, but the indented quotation contains the key language from it (i.e., the passage that her opponents have seized upon as the basis for their attack). As for the "bickering", the fact is that she's controversial. The current text quotes one of the attacks on her, quotes her defense, paraphrases Specter's criticism, and paraphrases one prominent spokesperson's response. That's in keeping with Wikipedia policy: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." (from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Neutral point of view) There's really no way to present this subject fairly without recounting a certain amount of bickering. JamesMLane t c 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Tax exempt status

I noticed there is no discussion of her attempts to remove the tax exempt status of a federally recognized church. A lengthy legal case was made over this. It would also be another point of contention over whether the president's statement that she was non controversial was infact true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.225.107.17 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dawn Johnsen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426051249/http://judiciary.senate.gov:80/nominations/AssistantAttorneyGeneralOLC-DawnJohnsen.cfm to http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/AssistantAttorneyGeneralOLC-DawnJohnsen.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)