As Abortion Restrictions Soar, Abortion Coverage Dwindles
Over the past decade, it has gotten much more difficult for women in the United States to access safe and legal abortion services, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute:
Jan 08, 2014
Over the past decade, it has gotten much more difficult for women in the United States to access safe and legal abortion services, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute:
Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011-2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001-2010).
These laws include restrictions on abortion providers, insurance coverage of abortions, and abortions themselves, among other things. The study continues:
In 2000, 13 states had at least four types of major abortion restrictions and so were considered hostile to abortion rights.... Twenty-seven states fell into this category by 2013.... The proportion of women living in restrictive states went from 31 percent to 56 percent, while the proportion living in supportive states fell from 40 percent to 31 percent over the same period.
How have national media kept up with this dramatically changing landscape? Not so well. According to a search of the Nexis news media database, coverage of abortion in the New York Times and Washington Post-the papers with the most influence on national political debates-have been trending downward since 2001.
The year 2011, which Guttmacher points out saw the most dramatic spike in terms of anti-choice policies, was the year that saw the least coverage in the New York Times and the second least in the Washington Post of the 13 years studied. Coverage bumped up in 2012, most likely as a result of the presidential elections and the "war on women" theme that was boosted by things like Missouri representative Todd Akin's infamous "legitimate rape" comment. (In the 2008 election, abortion was not a major focus of debate.)
It's possible that some of the downward trend can be attributed to a shrinking news hole, as papers adjust to dwindling revenues. But regardless of the cause, it's clear that readers aren't getting coverage that reflects the major shift in reproductive rights battles and access nationwide.
And as Sara McCloskey pointed out in her survey of 2013 abortion coverage (Extra!, 9/13), media priorities are clear: During the week and a half in which North Dakota passed some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country, national media mentioned the bills 207 times and March Madness basketball 1,407 times.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Julie Hollar
Julie Hollar is FAIR's senior analyst and managing editor. Julie has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Over the past decade, it has gotten much more difficult for women in the United States to access safe and legal abortion services, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute:
Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011-2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001-2010).
These laws include restrictions on abortion providers, insurance coverage of abortions, and abortions themselves, among other things. The study continues:
In 2000, 13 states had at least four types of major abortion restrictions and so were considered hostile to abortion rights.... Twenty-seven states fell into this category by 2013.... The proportion of women living in restrictive states went from 31 percent to 56 percent, while the proportion living in supportive states fell from 40 percent to 31 percent over the same period.
How have national media kept up with this dramatically changing landscape? Not so well. According to a search of the Nexis news media database, coverage of abortion in the New York Times and Washington Post-the papers with the most influence on national political debates-have been trending downward since 2001.
The year 2011, which Guttmacher points out saw the most dramatic spike in terms of anti-choice policies, was the year that saw the least coverage in the New York Times and the second least in the Washington Post of the 13 years studied. Coverage bumped up in 2012, most likely as a result of the presidential elections and the "war on women" theme that was boosted by things like Missouri representative Todd Akin's infamous "legitimate rape" comment. (In the 2008 election, abortion was not a major focus of debate.)
It's possible that some of the downward trend can be attributed to a shrinking news hole, as papers adjust to dwindling revenues. But regardless of the cause, it's clear that readers aren't getting coverage that reflects the major shift in reproductive rights battles and access nationwide.
And as Sara McCloskey pointed out in her survey of 2013 abortion coverage (Extra!, 9/13), media priorities are clear: During the week and a half in which North Dakota passed some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country, national media mentioned the bills 207 times and March Madness basketball 1,407 times.
Julie Hollar
Julie Hollar is FAIR's senior analyst and managing editor. Julie has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Over the past decade, it has gotten much more difficult for women in the United States to access safe and legal abortion services, according to a new study by the Guttmacher Institute:
Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011-2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001-2010).
These laws include restrictions on abortion providers, insurance coverage of abortions, and abortions themselves, among other things. The study continues:
In 2000, 13 states had at least four types of major abortion restrictions and so were considered hostile to abortion rights.... Twenty-seven states fell into this category by 2013.... The proportion of women living in restrictive states went from 31 percent to 56 percent, while the proportion living in supportive states fell from 40 percent to 31 percent over the same period.
How have national media kept up with this dramatically changing landscape? Not so well. According to a search of the Nexis news media database, coverage of abortion in the New York Times and Washington Post-the papers with the most influence on national political debates-have been trending downward since 2001.
The year 2011, which Guttmacher points out saw the most dramatic spike in terms of anti-choice policies, was the year that saw the least coverage in the New York Times and the second least in the Washington Post of the 13 years studied. Coverage bumped up in 2012, most likely as a result of the presidential elections and the "war on women" theme that was boosted by things like Missouri representative Todd Akin's infamous "legitimate rape" comment. (In the 2008 election, abortion was not a major focus of debate.)
It's possible that some of the downward trend can be attributed to a shrinking news hole, as papers adjust to dwindling revenues. But regardless of the cause, it's clear that readers aren't getting coverage that reflects the major shift in reproductive rights battles and access nationwide.
And as Sara McCloskey pointed out in her survey of 2013 abortion coverage (Extra!, 9/13), media priorities are clear: During the week and a half in which North Dakota passed some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country, national media mentioned the bills 207 times and March Madness basketball 1,407 times.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.