Abortion has become one of the most controversial topics around the world. Whether it comes up in political debates, protests, or even conversation, it seems to constantly lead to some sort of disagreement. This topic is interesting because it is one of the only few personal opinions that affect how people view an individual or group of individuals (e.g., democrats vs republicans). The research affects me because if I were in the shoes of a woman going through an unplanned pregnancy, then I would want my options to be open and not frowned upon if I chose to have an abortion. I believe that every woman deserves to make her own decisions about her body without being held back by the government and those who feel otherwise. I have the right to this discussion because I am of the women that could potentially go through this abortion process. Women who desire a termination of their pregnancy should not be worrying about whether or not their location will prohibit such a decision. Despite the fact that abortion is deemed legal in all states, they (the states) are not required to support and/or provide abortion clinics. Although this may seem reasonable, it is actually dangerous for women who do not have easy access to the proper medical care that they desire. This leads to the major question of how America can improve the health care of women -- wishing to seek an abortion -- when the state government prohibits the termination. 

Marlene Fried mentions, in an article about the impact of illegal abortions, that there is a strong correlation between abortion legality and abortion safety (OBOS). Her central claim of the article is that a lack of professional care towards a termination of a pregnancy can lead to injuries and even fatalities. Prior to Roe v. Wade, an estimated 5,000 American women died a year as a result of unsafe abortions. The World Health Organization defines an unsafe abortion as a procedure for terminating a pregnancy done by an individual with no necessary skills. Autonomy is a value and/or interest at stake in this article. If people believe that self-governing is leading to self-harm then there is a possibility that the government will try to strip women of their personal autonomy; whether it be through promoting pro-choice or overturning legalized abortion. Marlene Fried has worked internationally with the Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights on an international abortion access advocacy project. This leads her to write based on her pro-choice beliefs. Despite the bias perspective, she offers information derived from her experience and expertise which allows for a credible source. This article is useful when looking at the negative effects unsafe abortions can have on women. 

There was a viral statistic that one in three women have an abortion (Life News). In Kelsey Hazzard's article, she is claiming that the statistic is wrong and needs more attention drawn to it. Her main evidence was pulling up the direct source of the myth (2011 study by Dr. Rachel and Dr. Kavanaugh) and analyzing it for herself. She quotes exactly what was stated in the results and demonstrates where the miscalculation was. There are no values or interests at stake because although she makes it clear that she is pro-choice, this article is representing how many women get abortions in the United States. With her making it obvious that she is against abortions, the math is still correct and based on the raw data. Towards the end of the article, she uses the statistic to justify that despite all of the women getting this procedure done, it is still not morally right. She is technically credible to voice her opinion because it is based on a study that is clearly represented in the article. The math she calculated does not require a person of a statistics degree. This number is crucial when dealing with this topic because it is important to realize how many women are affected by abortions. 

Abortion clinics are rapidly closing in liberal states which is causing an uproar to those who support abortion facilities (The Guardian). Molly Redden writes an article with a central claim that too many abortion clinics are shutting down. She states that the Abortion Care Network roughly found that for every three clinics that close in a red state, two clinics close in a liberal state. She claims that accepting medicaid is costing the clinics and forcing them to shut down. A major value at risk is now facing the idea that abortion clinics may stop accepting medicaid altogether to save their clinic. This would endanger the less fortunate by preventing them from being able to afford an abortion, if need be. Doctors are considering only accepting patients who can pay for their procedure on the spot. Molly Redden is a senior reporter with a focus on gender equality. Although her credibility may not be sky rocketing, she quotes a lot of reputable sources within her article. Her bias leads to an argument of why the clinics should not be closing therefore leading the perspective to be one sided. Knowing that clinics are closing is valuable information when dealing with trying to expand the accessibility of having an abortion.

This research question is arguable because one person may feel it necessary to expand the abortion clinics; while on the contrary, someone else may think it is unnecessary and acting as a promotion to eliminate abortion as being a sin. Every article agrees that abortion is a heavily controversial issue that is difficult to resolve. The perspectives do not affect how I feel towards the topic because it has been proven that when abortion is illegal and/or not accessible, the rate of women harming themselves by self-abortions dramatically increases. I may need to revise my topic by making it slightly clearer because I understand that it can be difficult to follow sometimes. 

