Summary
The three articles I read were on abortion. They explored the effects of treatments/ procedure for abortion, the rising rates of abortion, and the effects of laws banning or restricting the procedure of abortion. The article from the center provides information, data and quotes without any strong bias or use of leading or subjective language. The language is neutral, letting the reader decide for themselves how they feel and what they think about the topics.
The article from the left is also very informational and it seemed to me that their language was pretty neutral. They spoke of the sequences of events and their affects, but one thing I noticed was that most of the information was about how there is still support throughout the country for women to access abortion procedures. They shared data clearly showing that even after the turn of Roe v Wade, women were still undergoing abortion procedures/ treatment. As a matter of fact, abortion rates have gone up after this. Though there is (almost) no suggestive language, sharing information like this may give hope to people who are pro-abortion rights and they might see this article as full of only wins. Though there was barely any suggestive language, we can see the author’s opinion towards the end when they state “It would be wrong to conclude that all is fine in post-Roe America. Abortion pills may be a godsend for early unplanned pregnancies...”, showing their gratitude towards these pills and expressing their feel for more to be done for women who seek abortions in more restrictive states.
This article from the right is the one with the most obvious bias and uses a lot of suggestive language. It’s all about the dangers of taking abortion pills. They state all kinds of painful, and even life threatening, effects. It’s all terrifying stuff and none of it speaks positively about abortion pills or women's rights. The author is clearly against abortion in general and this is made clear in the final paragraph where they say, “The abortion industry has sold the unsuspecting public a bill of goods ranging from, ‘It’s only a clump of cells,’” This is said to convince the reader that not only is the woman being affected, but what they’re terminating is the life of something alive and not an insignificant little thing. Interestingly, just as the right-leaning article doesn’t mention any positives, the article from the left side doesn’t mention anything about the dangers of taking these medications or many negatives at all. This shows the importance of doing one’s own research on a topic and not relying on one article or source.
