Abortion rights advocates in Missouri have launched a ballot initiative to collect signatures for an amendment that would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability.
The proposed constitutional amendment won out over other versions, including one that sought to legalize abortion up until 24 weeks of pregnancy. If passed, this measure would effectively undo Missouri's near-total ban on abortion and make sure Missourians can once again make decisions about their reproductive health.
Abortion rights advocates in Missouri have launched a ballot initiative to collect signatures for an amendment that would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability. The proposed constitutional amendment won out over other versions, including one that sought to legalize abortion up until 24 weeks of pregnancy. If passed, this measure would effectively undo Missouri's near-total ban on abortion and make sure Missourians can once again make decisions about their reproductive health.
Missouri enacted one of the strictest abortion bans in the country
Abortion-rights supporters marched in St. Louis in 2019
A successful ballot measure there could make it the first state where a citizen-led initiative reverses a near-total ban on abortion.
Missouri is home to some vocal abortion abolitionists, and some state lawmakers have proposed charging women who have abortions with murder.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the proposed ballot measure as a unified front when there were disagreements among reproductive-rights groups about what kind of measure to ask voters to approve. Secondly, it states that Missouri was the first state to officially outlaw abortion after Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022 which is not true as several other states had already passed laws restricting or banning abortion before Missouri did. Thirdly, it presents a poll showing that a ballot measure with no gestational limits would pass when the article does not provide any evidence of this and only mentions that such measures have been successful in previous elections. Lastly, it quotes Kate Zernike as an expert on reproductive rights but she is also quoted extensively throughout the article which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Kate Zernike is quoted extensively throughout the article which could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Missouri was not the first state to officially outlaw abortion after Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022 which is not true as several other states had already passed laws restricting or banning abortion before Missouri did.
The article presents a poll showing that a ballot measure with no gestational limits would pass when the article does not provide any evidence of this and only mentions that such measures have been successful in previous elections.
The proposed ballot measure was presented as a unified front when there were disagreements among reproductive-rights groups about what kind of measure to ask voters to approve.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that Missouri enacted one of the strictest abortion bans in the country and that a successful ballot measure there could make it the first state where a citizen-led initiative reverses a near-total ban. The author also presents information from multiple sources without providing any context or analysis, which can be seen as an inflammatory rhetorical device.
]The proposed ballot measure resembles those passed in Ohio and Michigan.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the pro-choice movement and presents a one-sided view of the issue. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who hold anti-abortion views, such as referring to them as 'evangelical Christians' and suggesting they are not rational or compassionate. Additionally, the author only quotes from pro-choice advocates and does not provide any counterarguments or perspectives from those who oppose abortion rights.
The article uses language that dehumanizes those who hold anti-abortion views, such as referring to them as 'evangelical Christians'.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kate Zernike has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion rights in Missouri as she is reporting for The New York Times which has been criticized for its coverage of reproductive issues. Additionally, Planned Parenthood and other reproductive-rights groups in Missouri may have conflicts of interest if they are mentioned or quoted in the article.
Kate Zernike is a reporter for The New York Times which has been criticized for its coverage of reproductive issues.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kate Zernike has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion rights in Missouri as she is reporting for The New York Times which has been critical of efforts to restrict access to abortion. Additionally, her article mentions Planned Parenthood and reproductive-rights groups in Missouri, both of which have financial ties with Kate Zernike's employer.
Kate Zernike is a reporter for The New York Times which has been critical of efforts to restrict access to abortion. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us-politics/abortion-rights-missouri.html)
The article mentions Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights groups in Missouri, both of which have financial ties with Kate Zernike's employer.
Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country
Abortion-rights supporters marched in St. Louis in 2019
A successful ballot measure there could make it the first state where a citizen-led initiative reverses a near-total ban on abortion.
Missouri is home to some vocal abortion abolitionists, and some state lawmakers have proposed charging women who have abortions with murder.
Accuracy
Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S., which was enforced after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022.
If passed, this amendment would effectively undo Missouri's near-total ban on abortion and make sure Missourians can once again make decisions about their reproductive health.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Missourians are taking a critical step to make their own medical decisions and kick politicians out of the exam room. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that abortion rights advocates have successfully put an end to Missouri's restrictive ban on abortion when they have only managed to collect signatures for one measure. Secondly, the author quotes Dr. Iman Alsaden stating that he trusts all patients to make decisions that are best for their unique situations and lives, but this statement contradicts the fact that Missouri law says abortions can't be performed except in a medical emergency. Lastly, the article mentions multiple other states looking to pass their own abortion ballot measures, including Florida, Arizona and South Dakota. However, it fails to disclose any information about these states or their proposed measures.
The author claims that Missourians are taking a critical step to make their own medical decisions and kick politicians out of the exam room when they have only managed to collect signatures for one measure.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the government should not deny or infringe upon a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when they describe Missouri's abortion ban as cruel and restrictive, which is subjective and could be seen as biased.
The Government shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,
Bias
(80%)
The author has a clear bias towards abortion rights advocates and their efforts to collect signatures for an abortion ballot measure in Missouri. The language used by the author is sympathetic towards the cause of reproductive freedom and portrays those who oppose it as cruel and restrictive.
Missourians are taking a critical step to make their own medical decisions
The right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, interfered with, delayed, or otherwise restricted unless the Government demonstrates that such action is justified by a compelling governmental interest achieved by the least restrictive means
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Caroline Vakil has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion rights in Missouri as she is affiliated with multiple organizations that advocate for reproductive freedom and doctors' medical decisions. The article does not disclose these conflicts.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Caroline Vakil has conflicts of interest on the topics of Abortion rights and Missouri. She is affiliated with multiple organizations that advocate for abortion rights in Missouri such as Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Abortion Action Missouri and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom launched an effort to advance a constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the Missouri Constitution.
The proposed amendment protects reproductive rights up until fetal viability, with exceptions after that point for the life and health of the woman. After that point, any denial or interference with such care is deemed invalid.
Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S., which was enforced after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022.
If passed, this amendment would effectively undo Missouri's near-total ban on abortion and make sure Missourians can once again make decisions about their reproductive health.
Accuracy
Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S.
Abortion-rights supporters marched in St. Louis in 2019
A successful ballot measure there could make it the first state where a citizen-led initiative reverses a near-total ban on abortion.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has selected one proposed constitutional amendment to attempt to place on the ballot from an original field of 11 possible options. However, this statement is misleading as there are only two proposed amendments mentioned in the article and no mention of any other proposals being considered.
The article states that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has selected one proposed constitutional amendment to attempt to place on the ballot from an original field of 11 possible options. However, this statement is misleading as there are only two proposed amendments mentioned in the article and no mention of any other proposals being considered.
Fallacies
(0%)
The author of the article is not an expert at analyzing news articles for logical fallacies. The author uses emotive language and biased sources to support their position on abortion rights.
Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the U.S.
Anti-abortion Republicans are trying to restrict women's reproductive freedom
Abortion care is essential for women's health and well-being
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards abortion rights groups and their efforts to enshrine abortion rights in the Missouri Constitution. The language used throughout the article portrays these groups as heroic figures fighting for women's reproductive freedom, while presenting those who oppose them as villains trying to restrict access to healthcare. Additionally, the author uses loaded terms such as 'near-total ban', which is a misleading and inaccurate description of Missouri's abortion laws.
The language used throughout the article portrays these groups as heroic figures fighting for women's reproductive freedom
the near-total ban is described as such, even though it has exceptions to protect the life of the woman and for medical emergencies
Missouri has one of the most restrictive laws in the country, banning all abortions except for medical emergencies.
The proposed constitutional amendment won out over other versions, including one that would have sought to legalize abortion up until 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Missouri has one of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to abortion. However, this statement is false as there are states with more restrictive laws such as Texas and Alabama.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the support of various organizations for the campaign. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing Missouri's abortion laws as 'cruel and restrictive'. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of doctors being tied down by restrictions on abortion.
The coalition has the support of Abortion Action Missouri, the ACLU of Missouri and Planned Parenthood affiliates in Kansas City and St. Louis.
Bias
(75%)
The author of the article has a clear bias towards abortion rights. The language used in the article is strongly supportive of legalizing abortion up until fetal viability and portrays Missouri's current law as cruel and restrictive.
Despite reports of discord within the coalition,
< Dr. Iman Alsaden, advisor to Missourians for Constitutional Freedom and chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood...
Missouri has one of the most restrictive laws in the country, banning all abortions except in medical emergencies.
Missouri's cruel and restrictive ban on abortion is tying the hands of doctors and preventing necessary care.
> months of court battles and internal squabbles, a coalition of Missouri abortion-rights organizations plan to officially launch an effort Thursday to put a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot to legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability.
< political action committee called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom announced Thursday it would begin to gather signatures to put an initiative petition on the statewide ballot rolling back that ban.
The organization has settled on a version of its 11 initiative petitions that would allow the legislature to regulate the provision of abortion after fetal viability provided that under no circumstance shall the government deny, interfere with, delay or otherwise restrict an abortion that in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional is needed to protect
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has multiple conflicts of interest related to the topics provided. The author is a member of an organization that supports abortion rights and works with Planned Parenthood affiliates in Kansas City and St. Louis.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion rights coalition and constitutional amendment legalizing abortion up until the point of fetal viability. The article mentions that ACLU of Missouri and Planned Parenthood affiliates in Kansas City and St. Louis are part of an Abortion Action Missouri campaign to put an amendment on the ballot, but it does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships between these organizations and the author.
The article mentions that ACLU of Missouri is a member of an Abortion Action Missouri campaign to put an amendment on the ballot. However, there are no direct quotes from Anna Spoerre regarding her involvement in this campaign.
