Perse, Elizabeth M., et al. “News Coverage of Abortion Between Roe and Webster: Public Opinion and Real-World Events.” Communication Research Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, Winter 1997, pp. 97–105. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/08824099709388650. 

This source focuses on abortion news coverage mainly from two big newspapers: New York Times and Washington Post. The main purpose of the article is to “examine the interrelationships among media coverage of abortion, public opinion about the issue, the occurrence of abortion in the real world, and the influence of presidential elections.” This source primarily analyzes data, which means it is not meant to argue for one thing or another. The extent of bias ends at the hypothesis. 

The results were very detailed, and not all related to our topic, but the connection I focused on her was the ways that newspapers can be influencers, and whether the possibility of an outside factor other than pro-life and pro-choice groups being responsible for the results we find. It is clear that political climate, especially during election seasons and after, is a big influence in whether a topic such as abortion is discussed in the paper. What exactly this means for our research I do not know, because we had not been previously considering this. Now that we have uncovered new information, our hypothesis may be wrong, or too simple. 

 Significant quotes to consider: 

“Results revealed that the number of stories, both overall and in the NYT, was linked to less restrictive opinions about abortion” 

“There is a positive relationship between the amount of mass media coverage devoted to an issue and the public’s perception about that issue’s importance.” 

This source provides a different angle for our research, because instead of looking at pro-life and pro-choice groups exclusively, the article looks at different factors, such as media coverage, which is another form of communication than persuasive language. It also shows the results of a professionally conducted study, which means the information is credible and thorough for our analysis. The reason we are using information from the 1990s is because our research requires a historical analysis to answer questions such as “when was each group more persuasive or successful, and in what settings? What is the context for the success of each group in those times?

Merz, et al. “A Chronicle of Abortion Legality, Medicaid Funding, and Parental Involvement Laws, 1967-1994.” 1996. 

This source is not meant to make any arguments. Rather, its claimed purpose is to provide a chronology. Following is a coverage of abortion laws from 1967 to 1994. Most of the sources used are United States laws, which means most of the information in this chronicle is interpreted from the primary source itself. This contributes to the credibility of the paper, as well as the fact that it was written by 3 people, one of them female. The female perspective is important to recognize, even in analysis of US law, because a lens from a male is not the same as that of a female. This mix of gender in the contributors provides a balance to reduce bias or skewed analysis.  

The paper also includes history on Medicaid funding and parental involvement in relation to abortion laws, which provides a wide scope of the issue. It begins with a focus on abortion laws from the 1960s to the 1990s, then moves onto Medicaid funding of Abortion. Following that is the history of Parental Involvement legislation. The paper continues with graphs and tables to document significant events. Because this is a report, and not an argumentative thesis, there is no conclusion. The data is the focus of this paper, and clearly no argument is made. This is simply a grouping of information on a particular topic.  

 Significant quotes to consider:

“The clarity of the trimester structure became blurred as medical science extended viability to earlier term fetuses.” 

“the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey? upheld waiting period and “informed consent” requirements where the required information is specifically intended to persuade women to choose childbirth over abortion.” 

“In Casey, the Supreme Court affirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, but ruled that the women’s right to privacy is not absolute” 

“with the trend towards legalization of abortion in the late 1960s, most state Medicaid programs provided reimbursement for those abortions which were legal under each state’s law. Essentially, abortion was treated like other medically necessary care provided to eligible women.” 

“Roe transformed abortion into a major political issue and, in doing so, raised two issues. First, could states exclude abortion from the list of medical services covered by Medicaid? Second, could the federal government choose to not match state Medicaid expenditures for abortion?” 

“in 1976 the U.S. Congress passed the first of a long line of budgetary acts, known by their sponsor Senator Henry Hyde, restricting the conditions under which federal Medicaid funds could be used to pay for abortions performed to save the life of the woman.” 

“after August, 1980, states were denied matching federal funds for “elective” and substantially all “medically necessary” abortions” 

“In its 1976 decision in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth,13 the Supreme Court struck down Missouri’s abortion-specific parental consent provision. The Court held the statute granted an unconstitutional veto to the minor’s parents.” 

“As of January 1995, twenty-one states had parental involvement laws in force.” 

This source will be useful in our research, because it allows us to skip looking through U.S. law databases, and attempting to understand the language. Instead, information on 30 years of legislation is condensed into one paper. The information will be used to analyze the effectiveness of pro-life and pro-choice groups by looking at which laws prevailed and comparing that to what the arguments of each side looked like and were presented as at the time.