Talk:Death of Amber Nicole Thurman
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. 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. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Medical reasons for her death.
editPrior information was completely politically biased as demonstratively seen by citing the actual laws that did and did NOT apply to her care after the abortion pill caused her to bleed. She was entitled to care because she had already aborted the fetus by use of an abortion pill. It may be that her care was delayed or denied by ignorance on the part of medical providers sought when she was bleeding. But the actual law did NOT oppose the care she needed in order to save her from the bleeding caused by the drug(s) she took. 75.174.44.225 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why has this pertinent information not been added? Without it, the article is one-sided and biased. 2607:FEA8:A424:9F00:111B:4CB1:8E57:E07D (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please add this section. It gives a more balanced POV. Without it, the article is inflammatory and may cause some to unnecessarily react and act in an emotionally driven way because the piece only provides a half story. Articles on Wikipedia should be presenting information, not propaganda. Mr Benny-Sanders (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is precisely the current state of the article. Why revert the edit to its original state? By definition the current article is one-sided because it supports the view that she died as a result of state laws. The referenced publication is itself one sided. By erasing the reference to the publication which had a completely different POV, you are erasing any pretense of neutrality. 75.174.44.225 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe things like this, it should be inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.35.136.209 (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)