The topic of abortion being ethical or not in America has been widely debated over years now and has become an political issue. I decided to research more about this topic and how some news sources have bias. Before reading, I already have a bias about abortion myself, but I wanted to put that aside and read the facts from The Washington Post article I came upon. The article, "The state of abortion in post-Roe America" written by Rachel Roubein and research conducted by McKenzie Beard. The bias hinted in this article presents "pro-choice" and used the rhetoric strategy of logos to prove their point.
To continue, the article shows a picture of protestors outside the U.S. Supreme Court holding signs "Keep Abortion Legal", "Stop Calling Violence Feminism", and more. Under the picture the author writes, "This is what the nation’s abortion landscape looks like a year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade." Furthermore, she continues to write about the data about how women have been affected with the ban of abortion in some states, including, Idaho, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and more. Roubein's article takes the direction of how women are finding ways to continue to get abortion even in banned states. She is able to provide lots of evidence regarding this, but only a few claims about the opposing side. For example, the birthrates in Texas rose 4.7% after the ban of abortions, but it's not clear if this is due to the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Roubein claims it's not clear because this was the time after the COVID pandemic and the immigration of Hispanics, "a population that tends to have a higher birthrate." She twists it to where anti-abortion laws can't truly cause the rise in pregnancy which I believe causes bias.
Overall, I believe The Washington Post article about abortion after the laws is a slanted report. The information provided caters that women need abortion because even if it is ban, they still have access. Personally, when Roubein provided the information that birth rates rose, it made me feel empathy to the women unable to have abortion access. Then again it's not 100% factual the birthrates rose in Texas because of the new laws. It's clear there's more research and data about "stopping" anti-abortion laws rather than how to stop abortion. Roubein provided a claim, "On the other side, some abortion opponents are urging Republican lawmakers to do more to crack down on illegal pill networks, backing measures that could help states to fully enforce their abortion bans," but she didn't provide lawmakers' names, information about these laws, or Republican statements. In conclusion, the article stated facts about how women are affected to anti-abortion laws with some bias in favor of "pro-choice."
No comments:
Post a Comment