4.22.2011 gg

"An abortion ruling that puts the privacy of women at risk"

Kate Smurthwaite
The Guardian, April 22nd

Hey, I'm just at work getting started on this. Don't know how far I will get. I have a flight to catch at 6pm so I will do as much as possible. May have to finish when I get in tonight.


This "news" behind this article is a recent legal ruling that will publish figures on late abortions to be released. Smurthwaite takes that bit of news and expands upon it, examining the implications for individual privacy, experiences of real women and taking a closer look at how each of the opinions in the decision is substantiated. Her article does contain quite a bit of opinion, though. Smurthwaite's article is both a feature and opinion piece, and necessarily so.


Smurthwaite begins her article with the bit of news, that the figures will be released, and a briefing on the implications of that decision, that parents and clinicians are "at risk" of being harassed and/or forced into court. This provides a solid grounding for the rest of her article. In the next few paragraphs, she explains what the DH policy had been before (and why) and the reason that she says parents and clinicians are at risk.


With her perspective in place, Smurthwaite introduces her first character, Harriet S, a woman in her 30s. She uses a really big, long quote to basically illustrate that having a late term abortion is not something that a woman plans on, that they are forced into occurrence mainly because of serious health conditions. In Harriet's case, "it wasn't a question of if the baby survived but of when it died." 


I would identify the author's nut graph as the paragraph following the two about Harriet. It contains data on late-term abortions in the UK as well as alternative reasons for abortions, such as the presence of foetal abnormalities. Well, maybe this isn't the nut graph. It just has a bunch of numbers in it. My bad.

I think it's interesting that the author chooses to feature a court case in regards to doctors performing late-term abortions on the grounds of cleft lip and palate. In these cases, the national media was not involved.  Smurthwaite uses this case and ones like it to illustrate that there's an unnecessary relationship between the media and the patients that puts pressure on the patient or the doctor to justify their decisions. Which is unnecessary. Seriously unnecessary. Did I mention that it's unnecessary? Because it's unnecessary? 


I like this article because the author illustrates her points in a subtle manner that demonstrates that she understands the nuances of the situations that she is describing. Smurthwaite understands that requiring data regarding late-term abortions could compel doctors and patients to feel they have to justify their decisions to the national media because that data would make personal information about those doctors and patients public. If the information goes public, the media is such that it puts pressure on individuals to justify past decisions. As Smurthwaite demonstrates with the story of Harriet S, it is often the case that the would be mothers aren't total demons or heathens, as most of the media would have us believe. Most national medias are all too quick to demonize women who undergo abortions, Smurthwaite unpacks the nuanced reasons why. The news is that the law was passed that would allow the data to be published, requiring it to be reported. Smurthwaite's feature is written on why that is a bad thing.