Given at the end is an article. Analyze it and output in the following JSON format.
{
"analysis": {
"bias": {
"score": "1-10, where 1-10 measures UNFAIR or UNHELPFUL bias.
As the AI analyst, you must judge:
1. Fairness of Bias:
- Is the tone/alarm proportional to events?
- Is criticism warranted by facts?
- Are similar actions judged equally?
2. Utility of Bias:
- Does the bias help readers understand real implications?
- Does it highlight genuine concerns that neutral language might minimize?
- Does it provide valuable context through its perspective?
Example: An article about climate change might use emotional language
and scary scenarios. While this is technically 'bias', it might be
USEFUL bias if it helps readers grasp real dangers that cold, neutral
language would understate.
A high bias score should only be given when bias is both unfair AND unhelpful.",
"description": "Explain both unfair and useful bias found. For each biased element:
1. Is it fair/warranted?
2. Does it serve a valuable purpose for readers?
3. Should it be removed or retained?"
},
"missing_context_misinformation": {
"score": "1-10",
"points": [
"", # DIRECTLY provide essential context the reader needs without ANY phrases like "the article lacks/doesn't/fails to mention/omits" etc. Simply state the relevant facts. Each point up to 5 sentences as needed. Up to 10 points. NEVER refer to the article itself or what it's missing - just supply the information directly. The missing context should try to compensate for the bias in the article, and not just add related information.
]
},
"disinformation_lies": {
"score": "1-10",
"points": [
"" # Provide corrections for verifiably false statement. These lines should be brief. Upto 10 points.
# Use Wikipedia (via the search tool) to verify events and dates up through 2025-06-06. Any event dated ≤ 2025-06-06 should not be marked as disinformation if it matches Wikipedia. Only flag statements you can not verify or that Wikipedia contradicts as of 2025-06-06.”
]
}
},
"summary": [], # A list of 2 to 5 paragraphs. Provide a version that: * Retains key facts and proportional concerns, * Removes unfair bias while keeping warranted criticism, * Adds critical missing context, * Corrects any inaccuracies. Remove author attribution. Maintain article's POV - no meta-references. You can decide the most appropriate length based on the article.summary can be longer than the article if needed.
"title": "Provide an Appropriate Title Based on the Article's Content.",
"changes_made": [
"List significant changes made in the summary",
"Include both removals and additions",
"Note bias adjustments"
],
"key_words": [
"3-10 relevant terms to help identify related articles",
"Focus on major themes and topics"
],
"keywords_update": {
"keyword-to-add-or-update": "new summary or updated to replace the previous"
}
}
KEYWORDS UPDATE INSTRUCTIONS:
- We want to save new information from beyond your knowledge cutoff of Mar 2024.
- Information can come from the provided article or Wikipedia.
- Pick up to 3 keywords of highest importance to update with new information.
- If a keyword lacks a summary, write one from scratch.
- For each keyword, list one line per new fact (up to 50 sentences per keyword).
- Each fact must:
1. Be one or two sentences long.
2. End with 1-3 references in brackets, e.g. [apnews], [nytimes,wikipedia].
3. Immediately after the reference(s), append a hyphen and the date of the event or when the fact was reported, in ISO format:
`Statement. [source] - [YYYY-MM-DD]`
- If you update an existing keyword's source (e.g. [foxnews] → [apnews]), ensure the replacement is supported by an article.
- Ensure each keyword is specific enough that its new facts warrant inclusion.
<example>
ARTICLE TOPIC
Raiding of 100+ immigrants allegedly illegal alients and alleged members from the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, MS-13, and the Hells Angels for deportation. Authorities also found drugs at the underground nightclub at a strip mall in Colorado Springs. President Donald Trump praised the raid, saying on TruthSocial it had targeted some of the worst people in the US, whom he alleged judges are reluctant to deport.
keywords worth updating:
tren-de-aragua (I am sure this gang has a big list of information, but this deportation will be worth a mention)
tren-de-aragua+deportation (a more specific keyword that can take more detail about this incident)
trump+illegal_deportation (add this to the list of illegal deportations conducted by trump administration)
colorado_springs (this is a unique event for this town. an update here will add some trivia.)
trump+immigration (a key fact worth mentioning about how trump is implementation his immigration policies)
keywords to not update:
trump (too broad. not one of top 50 facts related to trump.)
illegal_deportation (depending upon existing content, may be too crowded for this incident to be added)
colorado (too broad, unlikely to fit this event in top 50)
drug_raids (too broad, unlikely to fit this event in top 50)
</example>
<existing_keywords_summaries>
west-virginia+miscarriage-prosecution :
dobbs+pregnancy-criminalization :
fetal-personhood+criminal-charges :
pregnancy-justice+prosecution-cases :
tom-truman+prosecutorial-discretion :
reproductive-rights+law-enforcement :
ohio+miscarriage-felony-charges :
abortion-ban+west-virginia :
human-remains-disposal+pregnancy :
post-dobbs+reproductive-landscape :
west-virginia+miscarriage-prosecution :
dobbs+pregnancy-criminalization :
fetal-personhood+criminal-charges :
pregnancy-justice+prosecution-cases :
tom-truman+prosecutorial-discretion :
west-virginia+miscarriage-prosecution :
dobbs+pregnancy-criminalization :
fetal-personhood+criminal-charges :
pregnancy-justice+prosecution-cases :
tom-truman+prosecutorial-discretion :
</existing_keywords_summaries>
<wikipedia_requested_titles>
TITLE Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that ruled that abortion in the United States is not a protected right in the country. The Court heard the case in December 2021 and decided that the law, passed by Mississippi in 2018, is constitutional. It made all abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy illegal.
== Leak ==
On May 2, 2022, Politico published a leaked draft opinion. Someone found Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's notes and gave them to Politico. The notes looked like a majority opinion and so they would probably match the final decision. In the draft, Alito decided to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and rejected those earlier Supreme Court cases. Those court cases made abortion legal in the United States. With those decisions gone, each state would decide for itself whether it would make abortion legal or not.
== Decision ==
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that abortion is not a protected right in the United States.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurring opinion, which declared the law constitutional but did not overturn Roe v. Wade, which allowed abortion.
== Reactions ==
=== After leak ===
After the leak, members of the US Senate tried to make a new law to allow abortion in the whole country. The law would stop any states from making abortion illegal, but it did not pass.
On May 14, protesters marched and held up signs in more than 380 cities across the United States, and 20,000 people marched in Washington, DC. That was called the "Bans off Our Bodies" protests.
=== After decision ===
US President Joe Biden said, "It's a sad day for the Court and for the country," and that "the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk." In a statement, former President Donald Trump took credit for the decision and called it "the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation.”
Many world leaders and diplomats are against the decision and support abortion as a human right like UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, French President Emmanuel Macron, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, signed an executive order protecting abortion rights in the state. Democrat Governors Jay Inslee, Kate Brown, and Gavin Newsom, respectively of Washington State, Oregon, and California, also announced a creation of the "West Coast offense," a joint policy to allow and protect abortion rights.
In Florida, a new law restricts abortions to 15 weeks of pregnancy, down from 24, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
== References ==
TITLE Abortion in the United States
In the United States, abortion was federally legal under Roe v. Wade (the 1973 court case with which abortion was no longer a criminal act) until 2022. In 2022, the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, ending federal abortion rights.In several states, there are trigger laws under which made abortion illegal, and these laws came into effect when Roe vs. Wade ended. The decision also impacted abortion rights in Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Texas, and Mississippi, most of which are Republican. Most anti-abortion movement officials are conservative Republicans in a number of U.S. states. Few, however, are anti-abortion while advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (examples include the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, PLAGAL for short).
== Hyde amendment ==
The Hyde amendment (enacted in 1976) doesn't allow Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal funds to be used for abortion except if the mother's life is in danger, the mother was raped/sexually assaulted, or became pregnant through incest. This applies to thirty-two out of fifty states. They include Iowa, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Virginia, and Michigan.
== Related pages ==
Abortion
Roe v. Wade
== Abortion legality in other countries ==
The table below lists in chronological order the United Nations member states that have legalized abortion on request in at least some initial part of the pregnancy, or that have fully decriminalized abortion. As of July 2022, 65 countries have legalized or decriminalized abortion on request.
Note: In some countries or territories, abortion laws are modified by other laws, regulations, legal principles or judicial decisions. This map shows their combined effect as implemented by the authorities.
Abortion laws specify under what circumstances a woman can get an abortion. Getting an abortion means that the pregnancy is ended early, without the birth of a child. These laws vary widely, by country, and sometimes by area. They have also changed over time.
== References ==
== Notes ==
TITLE Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a 1973 landmark decision by the US Supreme Court that ruled that a state law that banned abortion was unconstitutional. The decision said that a woman's right to privacy extended to the fetus that she was carrying. The court viewed that during the first three months (trimester) an abortion was no more dangerous than carrying the fetus to full term. The 7-2 decision was supported by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and six other Justices and was opposed by Justices William Rehnquist and Byron White.
The decision divided the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps and is still controversial. Pro-life supporters argue that the unborn baby has the same right to life as other people and that the government should intervene to protect it. Pro-choice supporters believe that the unborn baby is not the same as a person, that the woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body and that the government should not intervene.
Roe v. Wade was limited by a later decision, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), which allowed the regulation of abortion in some cases. Several states have considered laws banning abortions altogether.
In May 2022, a draft of the Supreme Court's decision to overrule Roe v. Wade was leaked to the media. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
== Background ==
The case began in 1970 in Texas as a challenge against a law banning any kind of abortion unless the mother's life was in danger. A pregnant Texas woman, Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe), brought a lawsuit against Henry Wade, Dallas County District Attorney, in a Texas federal court.
Claiming to be a single woman and pregnant, McCorvey wanted to terminate her pregnancy. She could not get a legal abortion in Texas because her life was not in danger. She wanted it to be done safely by a doctor but said that she could not afford to travel outside Texas. Her lawsuit claimed that the Texas law violated her right to privacy, which was protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Roe added that she sued "on behalf of herself and all other women" in the same situation.
The case slowly made its way to the US Supreme Court. Meanwhile, McCorvey had her baby and placed it for adoption.
== Majority opinion ==
In a 7-2 decision, the court held that a woman's right to an abortion was protected by her right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision allowed a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion during the first trimester. That affected the laws of 46 states.
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion: "We... acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires."
== Dissenting opinion ==
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist, who disagreed with the majority decision for several reasons.
He pointed out that there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case, which was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would have been a woman in the first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.
The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy" from previous cases. However, he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."
The majority opinion was vague on the exact place of the right to privacy in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none was specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word "privacy" is not found in the Constitution.
Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in dividing pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions that states may make. He pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas: "The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."
== Right to privacy interpretation ==
The basis for the "right to privacy" is a judicial interpretation that can be traced from an earlier case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In that landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut law against the use of contraceptives violated the right to privacy, as found in the Constitution. However, the right to privacy is not directly mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy is implied by several amendments. In 1923, the court interpreted the "liberty" guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment as a broad right to privacy. Justice William O. Douglas stated the guarantees of the right to privacy had penumbras (implied rights) "formed by emanations (a flowing) from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
== Trimester concept ==
In its decision, the court used the three-trimester framework of pregnancy. During the first trimester, an abortion was safer for the mother than childbirth. The reasoning was that the decision of whether to get an abortion at that stage should be left up to the mother to decide. Any law that interfered with abortions in the first trimester would be presumed to be unconstitutional. During the second trimester, laws could regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. During the third trimester, the unborn child was viable and so could live on its own, outside the mother's womb. Then, laws could restrict or prohibit abortions unless it was necessary to preserve the mother's health. That doctrine stood until 1992, when Planned Parenthood v. Casey had the court now base the legality of an abortion no longer on trimesters but on fetal viability.
== Overruling ==
The case, Docket Number 19-1392,Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizatione et al. started being argued on December 1, 2021.
On May 2, 2022, Politico was given a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito suggesting that the Supreme Court is and will overturn Roe and Casey in a pending final decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The leak also renewed calls on the US Senate to pass legislation already passed by the House of Representatives to codify the rights created by Roe before the Dobbs decision is formally published.
On June 24, 2022, Roe v. Wade was formally struck down by the Supreme Court. The opinion officially released was almost identical to the leaked version on May 2, 2022. Because Chief Justice Roberts "concurring in judgment," the outcome has been put as 5-4 or 6-3 (technically, it is 6-3) and either way effectively overturned Roe v. Wade. The following are the opinions:
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court.
Concurring with the opinion were
Justice Thomas
Justice Gorsuch - There is no direct concurrence or dissent from Justice Gorsuch. Throughout the opinion, he concurs with some of the opinions and dissents with some of the opinions presented by the Court.
Justice Kavanaugh
Justice Barrett - Justice Barrett did not file any opinion with the document. She just concurred with what the majority wrote.
Concurring in judgment (in agreement with the outcome of the situation but with different thoughts as to why from the majority).
Chief Justice Roberts
Dissenting (not in agreement and voting against the majority)
Justice Kagan
Justice Sotomayor
Justice Breyer
This opinion has now given the power to the individual states on what laws they want on abortion.
Justice Alito wrote Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer stated in their dissenting opinion
With sorrow -- for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection -- we dissent.
During a speech at the White House, given shortly after the opinion was released, US President Joe Biden stated in part:
...the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk......It's a sad day for the court and for the country...
US Vice President Kamala Harris stated in a pre-scheduled briefing about the future of women's maternity care had to reverse course and she stated in her briefing:
This is a healthcare crisis, because understand: Millions of women in America will go to bed tonight without access to the healthcare and reproductive care that they had this morning; without access to the same healthcare or reproductive healthcare that their mothers and grandmothers had for 50 years.
This is the first time in the history of our nation that a constitutional right has been taken from the people of America. And what is that right? — some might ask. It’s the right to privacy.
== References ==
== Other websites ==
Roe at 40 – The Controversy Continues Archived September 6, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
Before and after Roe v. Wade, CNN
Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
TITLE Abortion in Wisconsin
Abortion has been legal in Wisconsin since September 18, 2023. It can be done in Madison, Milwaukee, and Sheboygan during the first 22 weeks of pregnancy. However, there is still some disagreement about abortion in Wisconsin after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022. Some people who are against abortion point to an old law from 1849. They say this law bans abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. However, some courts have said that this law only applies to killing a baby after birth, not abortion and courts are still deciding if this law can be enforced.
In a 2014 poll, 53% of people in Wisconsin said abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 45% said it should be illegal in most or all cases.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin started doing abortions again in Madison and Milwaukee on September 18, 2023, and they plan to start in Sheboygan on December 28, 2023.
== References ==
</wikipedia_requested_titles>
Given below is the article you have to analyze. Generate the JSON as per schema with relevant keyword summaries as per instructions.
strictly response in json formate.
<article>
Amid a constantly changing reproductive landscape, one West Virginia prosecutor is warning people who have miscarriages in his state that they could get in trouble with the law.
Raleigh County Prosecuting Attorney Tom Truman says that although he personally wouldn’t prosecute someone for a miscarriage, he made the suggestion out of an abundance of caution after hearing from other prosecutors.
Truman even suggests people might want to let local law enforcement know if they’ve have a miscarriage. Several reproductive law experts say people around the country have, indeed, faced charges related to miscarriages — but they still wouldn’t recommend reaching out to law enforcement.
Ad Feedback
Truman says the idea first came up during a chat with other West Virginia prosecutors at a conference several years ago, and it’s been been an ongoing conversation since. The initial conversation was theoretical, since at the time, women in the US still had the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. But some of the prosecutors believed they could charge a person using state laws related to the disposal of human remains.
“I thought these guys were just chewing on a Dreamsicle,” Truman said. But, he added, West Virginia’s legal statutes include definitions that are “pretty broad-ranging.”
The way some prosecutors may interpret the law means people who miscarry could face criminal charges, including felonies, he said.
“It’s a different world now, and there’s a lot of discretion that prosecutors have, and some of them have agendas where they would like to make you an example,” Truman told CNN.
“What’s changed is, Roe isn’t there anymore, and so that may embolden prosecutors in some cases,” he said. “I’m just trying to say, ‘be careful.’ ”
Related article
Kyleigh Thurman, one of the patients who filed a federal complaint against an emergency room for not treating her ectopic pregnancy, talks about her experience at her studio, Aug. 7, 2024, in Burnet County, Texas.
Eric Gay/AP
Texas hospital that discharged woman with doomed pregnancy violated the law, a federal inquiry finds
Early pregnancy loss is common, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, It happens in about 10 of 100 known pregnancies, often because the embryo isn’t developing properly. And some reproductive law experts say it’s probably not a good idea to call the police when it happens.
“It’s always a mistake to invite law enforcement into your reproductive life,” said Kim Mutcherson, a professor of law at Rutgers Law School who specializes in reproductive justice.
Calling police could prompt an unwanted investigation, she says.
“If they then decide, ‘no, it actually wasn’t a miscarriage, this was somebody who took pills,’ or whatever sort of thing that they want to conjure up, then all of a sudden it goes from ‘here’s this poor woman who had a miscarriage’ to ‘here’s a person who we’re going to start to prosecute,’ ” Mutcherson said.
“I understand the idea that caution is better than being caught up in something that you weren’t anticipating, but it is difficult for me to imagine any circumstance in which I would think it was safe for someone who miscarried to call the police,” she added.
Dr. Kristyn Brandi, an ob/gyn in New Jersey and fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said hospitals have processes around tissue from miscarriage — for example, sending it for further testing, disposing of it as medical waste or sending it to a a funeral home, depending on a patient’s desires.
“But in the real world, there’s no set process,” Brandi said. Patients may pass tissue and dispose of it in the garbage or toilet. Rarely, people will provide tissue for further testing. Their doctor may be able to answer questions, or Brandi said they can reach the M&A hotline, which supports people experiencing miscarriage or abortion.
“By having people report their miscarriages and possibly collect tissue, it is disrupting a process that honestly has been happening for thousands of years,” Brandi said. “There is nothing in pregnancy tissue that can determine it was a miscarriage or an abortion in a formal investigation.”
Related article
The previous EMTALA guidance does not "reflect the policy" of the Trump administration, a statement says.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Trump administration rolls back guidance specifying that ERs must offer abortion care when necessary
Abortion is illegal in West Virginia, but there are exceptions in the case of a medical emergency or a nonviable pregnancy, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Kulsoom Ijaz, senior policy counsel with Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit focused on the civil and human rights of pregnant people, said she doesn’t believe there is anything in West Virginia law that criminalizes miscarriage.
“I think the law is pretty clear,” she said. “There’s nothing in the law that says someone can be charged with a crime in connection to their pregnancy loss or their conduct during pregnancy, or for how they respond to that pregnancy loss or miscarriage or stillbirth.”
The fractured landscape of reproductive rights that came about in the wake of the Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court ruling that revoked the federal right to an abortion, has increased the risk that a pregnant person can face criminal prosecution for a variety of reasons, not just a miscarriage, according to a report from Ijaz’s organization.
Between June 2022 – when Dobbs was handed down – and June 2023, there were more than 200 cases in the US in which a pregnant person faced criminal charges for conduct associated with pregnancy, pregnancy loss or birth, according to Pregnancy Justice. The number is most likely an undercount, Ijaz said.
In West Virginia, there were at least three cases related to pregnancy prosecutions. In one, the state’s Supreme Court found that the state could not levy criminal child abuse charges against someone for their prenatal conduct, which included substance use during pregnancy.
Even with the strict abortion ban in place, Ijaz said, “there are still protections for pregnant people.”
Related article
CNN
See where abortions are banned and legal — and where it’s still in limbo
In states like Alabama that have fetal personhood laws that give fertilized eggs, embryos and a fetus the “same rights as you and I,” Ijaz said, it’s a little different. “We’ve seen people get prosecuted and face decades of incarceration for substance use during pregnancy, because that fetus that they’re carrying is seen as a child,” she said.
Last year in Ohio, a woman who had a miscarriage at home was charged with a felony on the advice of the Warren City Prosecutor’s Office, but a grand jury dismissed the case.
Ijaz said that she doesn’t think there is an appetite for these kind of cases among the public but that no matter where someone lives, inviting the law into their life right after a miscarriage is ill-advised.
The legal landscape for reproductive justice “seems to almost be changing on a daily basis” – and generally not in favorable ways for pregnant people, said Brittany Fonteno, CEO of the National Abortion Federation, a professional association for abortion providers.
“The laws, the rhetoric, the culture in which we are living in within the US has become so incredibly hostile to people who experience pregnancy,” she said.
“I think that the intersection of health care and criminalization is an incredibly dangerous path,” Fonteno added. “As a country, we should be supporting people and their ability to access the health care that they need, rather than conducting intrusive and traumatic investigations into their reproductive lives.”
Related article
An abortion rights advocate holds signage at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss., voicing her opposition to state legislatures passing abortion bans that prohibit most abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected, Tuesday, May 21, 2019. The rally in Jackson was one of many around the country to protest abortion restrictions that states are enacting. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
Abortion Fast Facts
Fonteno recommends that people who experience pregnancy loss reach out to a qualified medical professional rather than law enforcement.
“While we are living in a very different country than we were pre-Dobbs, I believe still that this is an individual experience and a health care decision,” she said. “Most providers believe that as well.”
Mutcherson also says that the reproductive justice landscape in the US is “scary” for people who are pregnant, who want to get pregnant or who have bad pregnancy outcomes. If there’s any silver lining to the discussion about criminalizing miscarriage, she said, it’s that it’s good for people to know that such things can happen.
“Women have been criminalized for their pregnancies for decades, frankly, so to the extent that there is a wider and broader conversation about what it means to treat an embryo or a fetus as a person, and the ways in which that diminishes the personhood of somebody who was pregnant, that is in fact a valuable thing, right?” Mutcherson said. “Maybe this is actually going to bring us to a better space.”
CNN’s Meg Tirrell contributed to this report.
</article>