Caroline Hulbert 5.27.19
Bio 10H Current Event 13
Wetsman, Nicole. “Here's Exactly How Restricting Abortion Harms Public Health.” Popular Science, 16 May 2019, www.popsci.com/restricting-abortion-public-health#page-2.
For this current event, I decided to review Nicole Wetsman’s article “Here's Exactly How Restricting Abortion Harms Public Health.” In this article, the author discusses how the recent laws passed by states such as Alabama and Georgia will have negative consequences to public health and safety. She starts by mentioning that abortions will become less safe as fewer clinics will mean women will begin having abortions later in their pregnancies, increasing their risk of complications, while currently, an average of only .75% of abortions have complications. Additionally, carrying a baby to term is much more risky than having an abortion, especially for women of color, who already experience more complications and higher risk of death from pregnancy. Wetsman concludes with the fact that unwanted pregnancies increase the risk of domestic violence and financial insecurity within households, noting that when women are unable to receive abortions, it can “tether them to violent men” and increase the amount of abuse they face.
I feel that this article is extremely relevant to the events currently occurring in our country. Abortion is an extremely controversial topic and the recent restrictions put in place by politicians has caused a lot of conflict between members of different political groups. I think that the points this article covers are very important when considering if these new laws are valid and that they should be looked into more.
I thought that this article was very well written and that the author did a good job including many statistics and specific pieces of evidence to support her argument and strengthen her writing. Aside from this, I think that she should have included arguments from lawmakers and and people who are in favor of abortion restrictions. Even though she does not necessarily agree with their opinions, including them would have made her article even more well written by including both sides of the abortion argument and appealing to a wider range of readers.
Chris Aherne
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio
6-4-19
Wetsman, Nicole. “Here's Exactly How Restricting Abortion Harms Public Health.” Popular Science, 16 May 2019, www.popsci.com/restricting-abortion-public-health#page-2.
For current event number 14, I decided to read Caroline Hulberts analysis of “Here's Exactly How Restricting Abortion Harms Public Health.” In her review she did 3 things very well. The first thing being that she included lots of facts in order to properly back up her argument. It made the review feel more complete. Secondly, she did a great job of expressing her opinion. This is shown throughout the article, and since this is a controversial topic, taking a stance is harder to do. Lastly, I found that her entire paper was very well organized. It seemed to flow very well without sounding wordy.
Although Caroline did many things well, she could have done a lot better. One thing I noticed was she never really went into the opposing stance very much. It felt too one sided without any rebuttal argument. Secondly, I found that she didn't express the author point of view enough. The entire review would have been much more complete if she had included this.
When reading Caroline's review, I learned a lot. Not just about abortions, but about the way that our country feels towards them as well. I chose this review because the topic stood out to me, as I am not very educated on it. But after reading this, I will have a better understanding of abortions and the way that they affect the female body.