•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Health, including pain, suffering, blood, and guts, has always played an outsized role in legal and public analysis of abortion. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the health implications of forced childbirth have returned to the public’s attention, as evidenced by prevalent health exceptions to abortion bans, legal actions in regard to those bans and exceptions, public attention to those cases, and public opinion polling. Recent, highly publicized cases of medical emergencies associated with pregnancy could be expected to reinvigorate a public exploration of the health risks of pregnancy, but the public has consistently refused to acknowledge the full scope of those risks. This Article is an examination of press coverage of two of the most highly publicized health exception cases since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Content analysis of over 600 U.S. News articles shows that the public still avoids discussing the health implications of abortion, even in press directly related to health threats. This offers an example of the barriers and inertia to social and legal change that are created by accepted and unaccepted narratives; in this case, narratives of “good women,” “deserving women,” and “good mothers.”

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS