Abortion in the media

Conti, Jennifer; Cahill, Erica P.

doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000412

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs)-organizations that try to intercept women who are considering an abortion-often describe abortion as dangerous or deadly in order to dissuade women from choosing to obtain an abortion [20]. In addition, false or misleading information on the internet about abortion continues to exert an influence on public debates and policy [21]. Previous studies have examined web-based abortion information, focusing on the quality of information available for self-referral (on CPC websites, specifically) and about D&E procedures [20,22,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Abortion Web Ecosystem: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trustworthiness and Bias

Han¹,

Boniface²,

Han³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background People use the internet as a primary source for learning about medical procedures and their associated safety profiles and risks. Although abortion is one of the most common procedures worldwide among women in their reproductive years, it is controversial and highly politicized. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that abortion is safe and does not increase a woman’s future risk for depressive disorders or infertility. The extent to which information found on the internet reflects these medical facts in a trustworthy and unbiased manner is not known. Objective The purpose of this study was to collate and describe the trustworthiness and political slant or bias of web-based information about abortion safety and risks of depression and infertility following abortion. Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of internet websites using 3 search topics: (1) is abortion safe?, (2) does abortion cause depression?, and (3) does abortion cause infertility? We used the Google Adwords tool to identify the search terms most associated with those topics and Google’s search engine to generate databases of websites related to each topic. We then classified and rated each website in terms of content slant (pro-choice, neutral, anti-choice), clarity of slant (obvious, in-between, or difficult/can’t tell), trustworthiness (rating scale of 1-5, 5=most trustworthy), type (forum, feature, scholarly article, resource page, news article, blog, or video), and top-level domain (.com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, or international domain). We compared website characteristics by search topic (safety, depression, or infertility) using bivariate tests. We summarized trustworthiness using the median and IQR, and we used box-and-whisker plots to visually compare trustworthiness by slant and domain type. Results Our search methods yielded a total of 111, 120, and 85 unique sites for safety, depression, and infertility, respectively. Of all the sites (n=316), 57.3% (181/316) were neutral, 35.4% (112/316) were anti-choice, and 7.3% (23/316) were pro-choice. The median trustworthiness score was 2.7 (IQR 1.7-3.7), which did not differ significantly across topics (P=.409). Anti-choice sites were less trustworthy (median score 1.3, IQR 1.0-1.7) than neutral (median score 3.3, IQR 2.7-4.0) and pro-choice (median score 3.7, IQR 3.3-4.3) sites. Anti-choice sites were also more likely to have slant clarity that was “difficult to tell” (41/112, 36.6%) compared with neutral (25/181, 13.8%) or pro-choice (4/23, 17.4%; P<.001) sites. A negative search term used for the topic of safety (eg, “risks”) produced sites with lower trustworthiness scores than search terms with the word “safety” (median score 1.7 versus 3.7, respectively; P<.001). Conclusions People seeking information about the safety and potential risks of abortion are likely to encounter a substantial amount of untrustworthy and slanted/biased abortion information. Anti-choice sites are prevalent, often difficult to identify as anti-choice, and less trustworthy than neutral or pro-choice sites. Web searches may lead the public to believe abortion is riskier than it is.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Abortion Web Ecosystem: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trustworthiness and Bias

Han¹,

Boniface²,

Han³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Abortions are often underrepresented or misrepresented in American films and television. The portrayals of the women's final choice on abortion, abortion-related complications, and the mortality rate in films are much more frequent than in reality (Conti & Cahill, 2017). Besides, the media is concentrating on pre-Roe plotlines rather than post-Roe plotlines, as if the issue of abortion were just a problem of the past (Sisson & Kimport, 2014).…”

Section: Cultural Disputes Over Life and Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

What Constitutes a “Due” Burden on Women’s Access to Abortion: A Cultural Discourse Analysis of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Gao¹

2021

ijcs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We can find numerous international treaties and legal documents that support women’s choice for safe and legal abortion. However, there are constant different, incompatible and even opposing discourses around abortion globally. This paper examines a 2016 legal case (Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt) to explore how anti-abortion discourse in the U.S. has found its way into the legal text. I begin by addressing women’s right to abortion as a human rights issue and then I investigate how U.S. abortion law entangles with social and cultural reality in the country; I then offer a close reading of the Supreme Court’s judgement and discuss the implications of such a legal text. Public opinions on reproductive rights in the U.S. are closely related to the dynamics between religious culture and feminist activism, and political manipulation leads to divided opinions over the issue. A close reading of the case shows that the court’s constant emphasis on “right to privacy” sets the stage for the current fragility of the reproductive rights in the U.S. cultural and political context. First, it opens a gate for anti-abortion groups to burden women with moral responsibility; second, under TRAP laws it becomes difficult for the abortion providers to justify their stand. I further argue that the undue burden test, which was central to winning this case, is not a strong test for future lawsuits over abortion rights.

show abstract

“…In their creation of content, then, journalists and other media creators have the ability to help provide opportunities for more robust and humane discourse. Yet, both Conti and Cahill (2017) and describe how journalists find it difficult to accurately depict abortion experiences and medical opinions due to false equivalency norms in reporting. These norms suggest journalists have to appear unbiased and present all sides of an issue "even if one side is scientifically false or based on no evidence at all" (Conti and Cahill, 2017, p. 427).…”

Section: Abortion Stigma In Public Health Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The issue of abortion is no exception. In recent fictional television and film abortion narratives, Conti and Cahill (2017) culled several striking research findings. For example, 37.5% of characters who obtained an abortion experienced a complication or negative health effect, when the actual aggregate risk is 2.1% (Conti and Cahill, 2017, p. 428).…”

Section: Abortion Stigma In Public Health Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“They Just Went After Us:” Reproductive Justice Advocacy at an Abortion Fund

Gantt-Shafer

2020

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, I explore how organizers at an abortion fund use new media to create communication outreach about abortion and their hotline service. The data for this study includes 1 year of digital ethnographic work as a hotline volunteer at the abortion fund, along with in-depth interviews with the fund's advocacy team. The fund organizers want to appeal to supporters, protect and empower communities, confront systemic oppression, and dispel medically incorrect, neoliberal (i.e., racist, sexist, and classist) anti-abortion myths. Due to societal stigma and silence, public abortion discourse is largely shaped by media (mis)representation. To combat misinformation and misogyny, reproductive justice (RJ) organizers disrupt mainstream abortion narratives with their own outreach. The organizers in this study use social media to interact with the public, supporters, donors, and anti-abortion activists alike. While these organizers publish anonymous data and stories from their hotline on social media, they also vigorously protect the privacy of their callers and hotline volunteers. The organizers recognize the importance of callers seeing their experiences represented in public discourse while also feeling protected from anti-abortion backlash. Therefore, I argue the abortion fund organizers carrying out this digital advocacy work are engaging in multifaceted emotional labor and putting their bodies on the line for a stigmatized issue. This study is informed by research that speaks to the promises and perils of new media for community building, movement organizing, and what Molina-Guzmán (2010) calls "symbolic rupture." Social movement organizers work within the shifting media environment to transform cultural narratives, build solidarity, sustain their organizations, fundraise, and stand on the front line of stigmatized issues-even while enduring the consequences of personal exposure.

show abstract

Abortion in the media

Cited by 13 publications

References 10 publications

The Abortion Web Ecosystem: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trustworthiness and Bias

The Abortion Web Ecosystem: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trustworthiness and Bias

What Constitutes a “Due” Burden on Women’s Access to Abortion: A Cultural Discourse Analysis of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

“They Just Went After Us:” Reproductive Justice Advocacy at an Abortion Fund

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About