If you're reading my notes and annotations, please consider using Hypothesis to annotate articles and hold journalists accountable for badly reported pieces like this.

This is the closest the authors come to admitting that they have not connected this list of "options" in any real way to their conclusion that those options would still exist without Roe.

This is maybe the part of this article that enrages me most. Of COURSE abortion methods improved over the years and fewer women died. But—and pay attention, because this is REALLY IMPORTANT—even ONE woman dying is too many. The implication here that abortion-rights activists are lying or being hysterical about coathanger abortions because "only" 200 women a year were dying from them in the '60s is outrageous and insulting and horrifying.

So not actually an option that is available.

And, though I am now tired of saying it, also not explained how this would continue to be an option without Roe.

Describes a two-drug method and then talks about one of the drugs being available. Does that still work? I don't know, because we breeze right by it. But this is supposedly another "option" we will still have if Roe is overturned. Again, it is not explained how this method would be protected without Roe.

The morning-after pill, as the name suggests, is intended to prevent a pregnancy from happening if taken very soon after sex. It is not a method for inducing abortion. By the time a person could know they were pregnant, it would be long past its effectiveness.

Glossing right over the fact that this is extremely out of reach for many, many people who might need abortions.

Again, unclear how this alternative would be protected without Roe.

Seeing a pattern?

I'm not even sure what the purpose of this paragraph is, in an article about what would happen if Roe were overturned. Surgical abortions, however safe, would be the first thing to go.

Describing contraceptives as an alternative to abortion implies that any woman NOT on birth control must want to get pregnant. It also ignores scenarios like, for example, a woman who is raped while trying to get pregnant with her partner.

And again, we're ignoring all the people who don't have easy access to long-term methods of contraception like IUDs, or can't use them.

Note that this availability 1) is opposed by many of the same groups lobbying for overturning Roe and 2) doesn't extend to many underserved populations, who we will continue to ignore completely in this article.

This is REALLY IMPORTANT because the whole premise of the article is that all these options would still be available if states were allowed to criminalize abortion. The very first example option is... abortion. There is no explanation of how this would be protected without Roe.

If you're reading my notes and annotations, please consider using Hypothesis to annotate articles and hold journalists accountable for badly reported pieces like this.

This is the closest the authors come to admitting that they have not connected this list of "options" in any real way to their conclusion that those options would still exist without Roe.

This is maybe the part of this article that enrages me most. Of COURSE abortion methods improved over the years and fewer women died. But—and pay attention, because this is REALLY IMPORTANT—even ONE woman dying is too many. The implication here that abortion-rights activists are lying or being hysterical about coathanger abortions because "only" 200 women a year were dying from them in the '60s is outrageous and insulting and horrifying.

So not actually an option that is available.

And, though I am now tired of saying it, also not explained how this would continue to be an option without Roe.

Glossing right over the fact that this is extremely out of reach for many, many people who might need abortions.

Again, unclear how this alternative would be protected without Roe.

Seeing a pattern?

I'm not even sure what the purpose of this paragraph is, in an article about what would happen if Roe were overturned. Surgical abortions, however safe, would be the first thing to go.

Describing contraceptives as an alternative to abortion implies that any woman NOT on birth control must want to get pregnant. It also ignores scenarios like, for example, a woman who is raped while trying to get pregnant with her partner.

And again, we're ignoring all the people who don't have easy access to long-term methods of contraception like IUDs, or can't use them.

The morning-after pill, as the name suggests, is intended to prevent a pregnancy from happening if taken very soon after sex. It is not a method for inducing abortion. By the time a person could know they were pregnant, it would be long past its effectiveness.

Note that this availability 1) is opposed by many of the same groups lobbying for overturning Roe and 2) doesn't extend to many underserved populations, who we will continue to ignore completely in this article.

Describes a two-drug method and then talks about one of the drugs being available. Does that still work? I don't know, because we breeze right by it. But this is supposedly another "option" we will still have if Roe is overturned. Again, it is not explained how this method would be protected without Roe.

This is REALLY IMPORTANT because the whole premise of the article is that all these options would still be available if states were allowed to criminalize abortion. The very first example option is... abortion. There is no explanation of how this would be protected without Roe.