Talk:House Bill 5414

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that under Connecticut's recently passed House Bill 5414, abortion providers in the state can countersue anyone who sues them under the Texas Heartbeat Act? Source: "H.B. 5414 counters bans like S.B. 8 by creating a new cause of action: Anyone sued for providing reproductive services in Connecticut could turn around and file a countersuit", Slate; April 20, 2022. "Effective date July 1, 2022", House Bill 5414
  • ALT1: ... that under House Bill 5414 the governor of Connecticut may not extradite anyone accused of breaking another state's abortion laws for actions legal in Connecticut? Source: "Then there is the nonextradition clause, a necessary but chilling analog to free-state efforts to shelter fugitive slaves before the Civil War. This provision bars the governor from extraditing an individual to another state for performing or abetting reproductive health services that are lawful in Connecticut." Slate
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Clements twins
  • Comment: I would really like this to run on July 1, the date the law goes into effect Well so much for that! Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 04:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is ready, and the promoter can choose the hook. It's too bad that longer articles at DYK typically take a while to get reviewed. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry we missed this, Daniel Case! In the future, feel free to light a fire under someone's tuchus at WT:DYK if it hasn't been reviewed with less than a week to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mammograms

@Daniel Case claims that the cited source says that Sen. Marilyn Moore "performed mammograms" at Planned Parenthood. That's not what it says. The article reads "An employee for Planned Parenthood for eight years, she said she helped women to get mammograms." What she is saying is that clients who came to PP and she wrote up referrals for them to obtain mammograms elsewhere, from some service that actually performs mammograms, not Planned Parenthood. PP does not perform them, never has, and so it is quite impossible that Moore performed mammograms at PP. Daniel Case, I reverted for a reason, and you've contravened my revert without a second thought; I would thank you not to misrepresent the sources, and therefore please revert yourself, or rewrite this passage so that it conforms with what Moore and the source actually said. Elizium23 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I will, though I would conversely suggest that given how easily this could be parsed the way I wrote it, you might be gentler in your correction since it requires knowledge not given in the text of the source that not everyone has (certainly not, I would guess, the Courant's reporter). In fact, you could have avoided this whole kerfuffle entirely by simply rewriting the text of the article yourself as you are now imploring me too (I mean, I understand, some people aren't terribly good at this sort of rewriting, but usually they're nice enough to tell you this when they ask you to do it). Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)