|
In May 2019, the governor of Alabama signed a bill that banned abortion almost entirely. “The news sent a jolt through the country, which had just watched similar, but less extreme, bills pass in Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, and Georgia,” Alexandria Neason wrote at the time. The headlines were panicked: “Near Total Abortion Ban Signed Into Law in Alabama” (the New York Times), “Alabama governor signs nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion bill into law” (CNN). People seeking abortions didn’t know what to do. “The southeast bureau of Planned Parenthood, which covers Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, was so inundated with calls from people unsure whether the procedure was legal that they had to open an automated hotline to field calls,” Neason learned. In fact, the bill had not yet taken effect; months later, a judge blocked it from becoming law.
Now there is more reason for panic, and for confusion. This week, Politico’s Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward reported on a draft Supreme Court opinion that would dismiss the constitutional right to abortion. “There is an enormous amount at stake here for millions of Americans, especially those from marginalized groups, and this should be the focus of our coverage,” Jon Allsop wrote the next morning. In a country where abortion restrictions vary from place to place, and gaps in healthcare access disproportionately put Black and brown people at risk—according to the Centers for Disease Control, Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white women are—there is a great need for plain and direct information: there has been no ruling; Roe v. Wade stands; abortion remains a safe medical procedure; pregnant people have options.
Last year, Maria Clark, a Louisiana-based healthcare reporter with USA Today’s American South team, and Jessica Mason Pieklo, senior vice president and executive editor at Rewire News Group, joined Kyle Pope on CJR’s podcast, The Kicker, to discuss abortion-rights coverage. They urged journalists to choose their words carefully and to challenge legislators on misleading terminology. The idea of a six-week “heartbeat” ban, for instance, isn’t supported by science, Pieklo said: “That is designed to create an emotional response in people.” Clark tries to avoid terms like “pro abortion” and instead uses “pro choice.” When it comes to finding sources, she added: “Reach out to the people who run abortion funds.” —Betsy Morais, managing editor
READ MORE »
|
