Study Hall Guide to Reporting on Abortion

Anna Furman on covering abortion rights with precision, accuracy, and humanity.

Historically, US media outlets have represented abortion access as a political drama between two opposing groups with equal power. In reality, a religious minority crusades for anti-abortion legislation while the majority of this country disagrees with their opinions and supports abortion rights. But rather than acknowledge voter consensus across party lines or the disproportionate influence of a far-right minority on policy, many publications continue to frame stories as if there are two sides with equal power. In especially egregious cases, this approach does a disservice to readers by reproducing misinformation and political propaganda, especially as new legislation in states like Texas and Florida drastically reduces access to life-saving medical care. 

When the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked in May, news organizations — including Axios, Gannett, and NPR — issued internal memos warning staff about sharing their personal opinions on social media. Misguided ethics policies that claim to maintain objectivity or neutrality feed into the narrative that abortion access is a politicized topic rather than an issue of access to medical care or of human rights.

The following is a guide to covering abortion rights with precision, accuracy, and humanity — bulwarks against the agendas of white nationalism and theocracy. Study Hall spoke to journalists and editors about the importance of taking medical experts’ guidance on how to report on abortion with accuracy, rather than adopting political or activist language, as well as zooming out to remember the stakes — which, for many in this country, include physical harm, violence, incarceration, and death.

Gender-inclusive Language is a Matter of Accuracy

Some media outlets have finally started using gender-inclusive language that their readers have understood (and identified with) for decades. Just five months ago, The Associated Press Stylebook added the term “pregnant person” to its guide. Otherwise reputable publications had previously used “pregnant women” to describe groups that included nonbinary and trans people, as well as children who are unduly harmed by abortion bans. 

“When we are reporting on stories of 11-year-old victims of incest, for example, ‘woman’ doesn’t fit,” said Jessica Pieklo, Rewire News Group’s executive editor. “Do you want to call an 11-year-old a ‘woman’? We will be seeing more of these kinds of stories, as the impact of extreme abortion bans take effect.” To describe the wide swath of people targeted by recent legislation, newsrooms can both specify the gender of sources and use broad, gender-inclusive language to describe a group in the same article. As always, when in doubt, ask the source how they identify.

When quoted in an article, especially about abortion access, sources are often vulnerable to public attack, ridicule, and retaliation; journalists therefore have an acute responsibility to sources to communicate the risks of identifying themselves publicly, and to represent their full humanity. “People who require abortion care have been dehumanized over a period of centuries, really,” Rebecca Traister, a writer at large for New York Magazine, told Study Hall. “When I write about my subjects, I want to convey that they’re human beings. Humanity itself is full of contradiction and inconsistency and complication and nuance. We don’t abide by rules.”

Stop Using “Pro-Life”

Fanatic, anti-abortion groups that are fighting against essential health care claim to be, paradoxically, for life, but state-by-state abortion bans put many people’s lives at risk. It’s reporters’ jobs to question where the misnomer “pro-life” comes from and to illustrate the real-world consequences of this movement’s legislation. After the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, anti-abortionists rebranded themselves as part of a positive movement by using the language “pro-life” — a term previously used by anti-war activists.

Pieklo explained that there’s nothing pro-life about subjecting minors to mandatory procedures that can be unsafe for children, like cesarean sections. She described the term itself as offensive and added that “anti-abortion” doesn’t always go far enough. “I prefer anti-choice to anti-abortion because it’s [about the] totality of what the anti-choice movement is trying to do, which is to remove choice beyond abortion — to remove choice of birth control, around IVF, around who I want to marry,” she said.

But not everyone agrees with the umbrella term “anti-choice.” Freelance journalist Moira Donegan, a columnist for The Guardian US who covers gender and politics, wrote that the word “choice” is often used as a euphemism for abortion. ​​“When talking about antis I like to emphasize their opposition to freedom and self-determination for women and trans people,” she wrote in an email to Study Hall. But with language, there’s not always a one-size-fits-all solution. Donegan likes to use words interchangeably, like “anti-choice,” “women’s rights opponents,” or “anti-abortion.” 

“For the abortion rights side, I appreciate the argument for ‘pro-abortion,’” she wrote. “It rejects shame in a way that I appreciate.”

The AP Stylebook recommends using “anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion” rights — not “pro-life,” “pro-choice,” or “pro-abortion.” According to Abby Johnston, the editorial director of The 19th, an independent, nonprofit newsroom, “‘Pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ are politically driven names that groups have given themselves, and it’s harmful for journalists to repeat them.” (Disclosure: I am currently a contract copy editor for The 19th.) “‘Anti-abortion’ and ‘abortion rights’ are accurate terms,” Johnston added.

It’s not only a matter of accuracy, but about precision, too. “Descriptions are always better than labels,” said Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor for standards and practices. He gave the example of the phrase “pro-life activist,” which could be revised to describe what they do: work to restrict access to abortion.

Use Medical Terms, Not Political Language

Most politicians aren’t experts in health, science, and medical care — so the words that they use online and in press conferences should be treated as what they are: promotional content. “People with agendas and governments tend to use language to obfuscate” the issues, Cavin said. “We as journalists have an obligation to use language to clarify.” He pointed to Texas’s Senate Bill 8, or the “Texas Heartbeat Act,” as a key example. Instead of uncritically regurgitating the bill’s name, Johnston said it’s important to call it what it is: a six-week abortion ban. “Plain language is more informational for the reader. It doesn’t put a political spin on it or allow one side to make a semantic decision.”

To describe Texas’s six-week abortion ban, Physicians for Reproductive Health, a nonpartisan group of health providers, also advocated for using “near-total abortion ban.” The term “heartbeat bill” is unscientific and misleading because embryos don’t develop a heartbeat until 17 to 20 weeks gestation, not six. Similarly, when referring to abortion later in pregnancy or “later abortion,” avoid “late-term pregnancy,” which is not a medical term. Historically, mainstream outlets have represented later abortions as frequent occurrences, when only about 1.1 percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. 

Watch Your Adjectives
Depending on how they’re used, descriptive adjectives like “extreme” can introduce imbalance. For instance, Physicians for Reproductive Health considers all abortion bans to be extreme and dangerous. If unsure, editors should ask journalists — and journalists can ask expert sources — where a particular phrase originated and about the history of its usage.

According to Elizabeth Nash, Guttmacher Institute’s principal policy associate for state issues, even the term “exception” has political implications. “Anti-abortion policymakers see exceptions as loopholes. Therefore, their main function is PR tools to make abortion bans seem less cruel than they actually are,” she said. After abortion bans go into effect, even people who ostensibly qualify as “exceptions” — in cases of rape, incest, and people facing pregnancy complications — are cut off from receiving care.  

Plus, as Nash pointed out, “focusing on exceptions to bans ignores most people who are harmed by abortion bans and even stigmatizes people who seek abortions for other reasons.” 

Protect Sources, Serve Readers, Understand Risk

This is, undoubtedly, a perilous time to cover abortion access. “Tenets of our legal system are being eroded and uprooted around us and the most important thing we can do is to pay attention, to the best of our ability, and to be prepared to describe change as it’s happening,” said Traister. 

The laws for telemedicine, including receiving medication abortion from out-of-state providers and traveling for care, are rapidly changing. “We need to translate for people what [new bills] mean, and follow the very real impacts that come from this legislation,” said Johnston. “That’s central to our work.” But more restrictive, punitive measures like Senate Bill 8 — which not only authorizes individuals to sue providers for performing abortions after six weeks, but also incentivizes “bounty hunting” — mean that it is ever-more critical to act responsibly when sourcing for experts and first-person stories. 

Protecting a source’s identity can be tricky to negotiate when many mainstream outlets uphold stringent standards, rightfully so, for naming sources. “NPR is very strict about granting anonymity,” said Cavin. “The logic is that we report facts and a pseudonym is fiction. But if we’re going to grant anonymity, we want to explain to our audience why we’re doing it. Protecting our sources comes first, and being transparent with our audience is a close second.”

Traister reminds us that this level of caution and precision isn’t just about semantics; the material risks for sources are incredibly high. “It’s extremely crucial to be aware of criminal vulnerability for both abortion seekers, and providers and support networks,” she said. “And because the legal picture is itself so messy and ever-changing — within every state and every jurisdiction — it matters who the local prosecutor is, and what medical care a person is receiving.”

Images Matter

Often the piece of an article that’ll leave the strongest impression on the reader — or scroller — is the top image. To illustrate stories, newsrooms that don’t have staff photographers or budgets for freelance illustrators often rely on Getty Images and The Associated Press. “The pool of wire photography available is small, so some of the easiest photos to get for abortion stories end up being protest photos,” said Johnston. 

With stock images, tropes abound. Pieklo said she’s seen many photos of headless, very pregnant people. “It does real harm, because if [readers] don’t even see a [face], they can’t associate [the image] with an actual person.” Both Pieklo and Traister pointed to the phenomena of news stories about the six-week abortion ban paired with photos of people who appear eight or nine months pregnant. “It’s so deeply misleading and antithetical to what journalism is supposed to be,” said Traister.

Rewire News Group — a nonprofit, issue-specific media outlet — is in the process of creating a visual archive to support media outlets with better options for imagery. They are collecting photos, illustrations, and mixed-media assets that can appropriately frame stories about abortion and abortion restrictions, as well as the whole landscape of sexual health rights and privacy. 

For a comprehensive guide to covering abortion access and reproductive care, please visit the Physicians Reproductive Health resource and Liberate Abortion guide, which was recommended by the Center for Reproductive Rights. Additional resources, including email templates and a sourcing guide, are available here.

---