We’re receiving a steady stream of emails and texts suggesting that we do more stories on abortion, and, as you might imagine, they’re divided between people who say abortion is a fundamental and Constitutional right for women and people who say abortion is murder.
That’s the problem with covering abortion -- it is the most binary of issues. The vast majority of America is firmly ensconced on one side or the other, with no possibility of being dislodged. They feel they know all they need to know and don’t seek ,or wish for, further illumination. They just want everyone to see it as they do.
When the Supreme Court draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade leaked a few weeks ago, passions immediately ran high, in the public and in the newsroom. Everyone seemed to want to do something.
What is the role of the journalist here?
Of course, we will publish stories about the Supreme Court decision and how Ohio legislators respond. And, of course, we will cover the public’s reaction to those stories.
What about stories, however, interviewing women who want abortions but don’t have the means to travel to states where they are legal? Should we write those? Or stories about women with unwanted pregnancies who give birth and offer children for adoption? Should we write those?
My question is, for whom? People who believe the choice on abortion is a fundamental right will have sympathy for the former, and those who oppose abortion will celebrate the latter. With people so firmly entrenched in their opinions, what is the point of writing stories to examine the issues?
I’m going to receive angry emails for asking these questions, I’m sure. And I’m as certain that I will get them from people on both sides of the issue. We make people angry no matter what we write about abortion because people have such strong feelings about it. People who see abortion as a Constitutional right want stories to support their position. People who see abortion as murder want stories to support that opinion.
One solution we’ve come upon is from a reader. He suggested that we look into our archives from the days before the Supreme Court recognized abortion as a Constitutional right nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade. Doing that will illuminate for people today what America might be getting itself into if the Supreme Court follows through and rescinds a woman’s Constitutional right to abortion.
We’ve been combing through the old stories, and the picture that has emerged is quite murky. Ohio prohibited abortions back then, but the law was a mess. In the years immediately before Roe v. Wade, proposals to reform the abortion law stagnated in the Legislature.
But women were getting abortions despite the prohibition. Stories from back then make clear that women had options, in state and out of state, if they had the cash. And those without means were left to barbaric abortion choices.
We are republishing some of those archived stories. We published one last week in which a writer for The Plain Dealer Sunday Magazine did lengthy interviews with two women with unwanted pregnancies. One scheduled an abortion but ultimately opted not to have it, giving her son up for adoption. The other opted for the abortion. The stories discuss the options they had for abortions and how they made their decisions. Both of the women were quite passionate about what they decided. It’s a terrific story, a clear window on the issue. You can read it here: https://tinyurl.com/twoabortionstories
I didn’t hear from a lot of readers, but those who wrote identified with one woman or the other. They seized upon the arguments made by the woman they agreed with to support their own positions. No one said the stories opened their minds to a new perspective.
Like I said, we’ll cover the breaking news on abortion. And we’ll talk to candidates for office about their positions as voters head to the polls.
Normally, though, we pride ourselves on the enterprise reporting we do, the pieces that explore issues and provide additional perspective. Ideally, we would work to illuminate readers as to the complexity of the human experience that makes this issue less binary than any of us may think. We would seek to inform the debate.
With abortion, there is no debate. There are just two groups of people, diametrically opposed, cemented to their positions and certain they are correct.
And that is what makes this such a challenging issue for journalists.
Thanks for reading.
