Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Abortion: How Women Became Prejudiced

Brainstorm

In many countries, abortion has been banned, ultimately leading women to go to unsafe

locations for medical procedures that result in injury or death more often than not. That all

started to change around the 20th century, though. Different countries have slowly been changing

their laws to make abortions more accessible, but there are still tons of restrictions. For Instance,

the United States had a massive shift in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruling said it’s protected

under the right to privacy. So now it’s legal for a woman to get an abortion during their first

trimester. Moreover, Countries like Canada, France, and China also expanded women’s rights.

However, most Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East still have strict rules against

it. This forces women to find dangerous methods, which in some cases may lead to death. But

even nations with legal abortion heavily restrict access by adding requirement after requirement,

such as waiting periods and counseling requirements, which allows medical providers to opt-out

if they don’t want to do it. Globally, about 25 million unsafe abortions happen each year, which

leads to complications, resulting in 47k deaths among women. Advocates for women’s health

continue putting together efforts to increase accessibility worldwide.

 Surname 2

The Research questions set to guide this research are:

 How has the influence of State legislatures and their policies, like mandatory waiting

periods and restrictive abortion laws, contributed to the prejudice against women seeking

an abortion?

 How has Media coverage of abortion, especially when talking about race and class,

shaped public opinion?

 How do state-mandated pregnancies raise ethical concerns, negatively impact perceptions

of abortion, and threaten women’s reproductive autonomy and access to healthcare?

Annotated Bibliography

Fox, Dov. “The Abortion Double Bind.” Social Science Research Network, 16 June 2023,

Summary: Doctors face conflicting legal duties regarding abortion after Roe's overturn. They

risk prosecution if they perform abortions that don't fit unclear medical exceptions to abortion

bans. But they also risk malpractice liability if they fail to provide medically necessary abortions.

This "double bind" chills doctors, suppressing case-by-case judgment critical for responsive care.

The article explores this dilemma and actions to reduce doctors' legal risks.

Evaluation: Fox insightfully analyzes the "double bind" for doctors on abortion after Roe's

overturn. Though offering practical suggestions, the article's primary value lies in its honest

perspective and thoughtful nuance regarding the complex legal dilemmas doctors now face. Fox

clarifies the issues, encouraging concerned professionals through a balanced, grounded approach.

Reflection: The article offers a unique perspective that might complement this research on

women's attitudes toward abortion. Fox's analysis of the complex legal and ethical dilemmas

now faced by doctors regarding abortion laws could provide helpful context for the broader
 Surname 3

social approach. His focus on the clinical and legal impacts of abortion restrictions highlights

challenges that often get overlooked in sociopolitical discussions.

Knopf, Alison. “Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders and Prenatal Exposure to Epilepsy Drugs.” The

Brown University Child & Adolescent Psychopharmacology Update, vol. 24, no. 9, Aug. 2022,

pp. 1–3.

Summary: This article highlights that One in 1000 pregnant women take antiseizure meds, but

little is known about its effects on the fetus. Stopping medication raises seizure risk and maternal

mortality. More research on the impacts on the baby is needed to find the right balance between

controlling seizures and minimizing developmental issues.

Evaluation: This article brings up a clinical dilemma that’s crucial — finding the right balance

between controlling seizures for pregnant women and the possible harm to their baby from

antiseizure medications. New research is essential in clarifying the effects of different meds

during various stages of development. But while we wait, the author emphasizes how vital

counseling is. The decision ultimately comes down to a risk-reward analysis that should involve

both the patient and the doctor.

Reflection: The article reinforces the importance of making careful, informed decisions about a

baby’s development during pregnancy. This also provides insight and understanding for young

women who, for whatever reason, decide to explore an abortion. For both groups, all options for

making responsible healthcare decisions must be disclosed, and nonjudgmental counseling must

be available.

Miao, Lihan, et al. “News Coverage of Abortion to Race and Class in the United States in 2021.” The

American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 22, no. 8, Aug. 2022, pp. 88–90,
 Surname 4

Summary: In summary, the article highlights that news coverage of abortion overrepresents

low-income Black and Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic white women, potentially

reinforcing negative stereotypes. However, increased representation of women of color as

advocates may help empower them against inequality.

Evaluation: This commentary provides a thoughtful discourse analysis revealing how news

media representations of abortion may perpetuate racial stereotypes while also noting that

increased visibility of marginalized voices has the potential for empowerment against inequality.

Reflection: The article focuses on racial and class disparities in news coverage, potentially

reinforcing stereotypes, while the second research addresses how women seeking abortion can

face prejudice. The article is crucial in this research as it highlights the importance of fair and

empowering representation for marginalized groups when discussing reproductive health.

Robinson, Deneen, and Megan Simmons. “Codify Abortion Rights and Access by Way of State

Legislatures.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 113, no. 4, Apr. 2023, pp. 386–87,

Summary: This article discusses the consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade, particularly for

Black women in the South, and advocates for state legislatures to codify abortion rights to

protect bodily autonomy.

Evaluation: The article makes a compelling case for codifying abortion rights in state law to

protect reproductive freedom, especially for marginalized groups like Black women in the South

who face more significant barriers. More should be done to uphold rights and promote equity.

Reflection: Overturning Roe v. Wade enables prejudice against women seeking abortions,

especially marginalized groups, by removing protections for reproductive autonomy and bodily

integrity. Codifying abortion rights in state law is critical to counteract this prejudice.
 Surname 5

Goodwin, Michele. “Ending the Debate Whether State-Mandated Pregnancies Are Matters of

Bioethics Concern.” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 22, no. 8, Aug. 2022, pp. 31–33.

Summary: State-mandated pregnancies violate principles of bioethics like autonomy and justice.

Although pregnancy always carries risks, banning abortion increases dangers for women,

especially minority women, as data shows. The erosion of Roe v. Wade enables states to

dismantle reproductive rights more broadly.

Evaluation: Concise and accurate summary highlighting how banning abortion violates

bioethical principles and disproportionately endangers minority women's lives and health.

Reflection: Women seeking abortions face stigma and prejudice as laws erode their reproductive

autonomy, forcing them into dangerous clandestine procedures or involuntary pregnancies

contrary to principles of beneficence and justice.

Proposal

This research examines prejudice against women seeking abortions, which has emerged

through restrictive laws, media narratives, and language disempowering women, especially

marginalized groups. The sources highlight this prejudice from various angles:

Fox explores the legal "double bind" doctors face regarding unclear abortion restrictions

and risks of prosecution. This provides context on challenges curbing medical judgment.

Knopf looks at balancing seizure control and developmental impacts when pregnant

women take epilepsy drugs. This underscores carefully weighing healthcare risks/benefits.

Miao analyzes how news media overrepresents low-income minority women, potentially

perpetuating stereotypes while also giving marginalized groups a voice.

 Surname 6

Robinson advocates codifying abortion rights through state legislatures to protect bodily

autonomy and promote equity, given the erosion of protections and barriers facing marginalized

groups after overturning Roe v. Wade.

Goodwin argues that state-mandated pregnancies violate bioethical principles like

autonomy and justice, disproportionately endangering minority women's lives and health by

banning abortion.

I plan to enter this conversation by examining how prejudice has emerged against women

through restrictive abortion legislation, media narratives, and language disempowering and

limiting healthcare options, especially for marginalized groups. This prejudice compromises

principles of autonomy, justice, and beneficence.

Thesis: Systemic prejudice against women seeking abortions has been enabled through

laws curtailing reproductive autonomy, stereotyping media representations, and rhetoric

stripping women of authority over healthcare choices, disproportionately harming low-income

women and women of color.

This research will build on arguments by synthesizing insights and providing an

overarching perspective on how prejudice has emerged through various societal channels,

arguing this threatens ethical principles and women's rights. The main contribution is examining

prejudice's emergence through a socio-legal-ethical lens.