Watch: Why Abortions Are on the Rise Since ‘Roe’ Was Overturned 35%

By Kate Wells41% Hannah Norman57%

8/7/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Special Pleading, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 38.1% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 278 faulty-reasoning hits from 97 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.1% and a BS Rank of 35% (19,853 of 30,168 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.80% of the article peer group.

Say you live in deep-red Louisiana, a state that has effectively banned abortion. 
It may be easier for you to get abortion pills now than before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. 
Wade. 
Here’s why  and what it means for future battles over abortion access. 
And as a federal court mulls a case that could result in significant restrictions on a pill used in most abortions, healthcare providers say they have alternatives to preserve access even in states with bans in place. 
Read more here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Kate Wells: 1.7%KFF Health News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.4%KFF Health News: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 38.1%Kate Wells: 3.4%KFF Health News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic38.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.4%KFF Health News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.5%KFF Health News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 38.1%Kate Wells: 2.1%KFF Health News: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias38.1%This article: 30.9%Kate Wells: 4.1%KFF Health News: 4.0%Framing Effect30.9%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 2.5%KFF Health News: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Kate Wells: 3.1%KFF Health News: 1.4%Pessimism Bias13.4%This article: 11.3%Kate Wells: 6.0%KFF Health News: 6.0%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.8%KFF Health News: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 1.0%KFF Health News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.3%KFF Health News: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.4%KFF Health News: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.6%KFF Health News: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.9%KFF Health News: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.3%KFF Health News: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.7%KFF Health News: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 38.1%Kate Wells: 2.0%KFF Health News: 3.5%Appeal to Authority38.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.7%KFF Health News: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 2.2%KFF Health News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 3.2%KFF Health News: 2.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 3.4%KFF Health News: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 13.4%Kate Wells: 0.6%KFF Health News: 0.3%Begging the Question13.4%This article: 11.3%Kate Wells: 2.1%KFF Health News: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.3%KFF Health News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 1.5%KFF Health News: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.6%Kate Wells: 0.3%KFF Health News: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.6%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 38.1%Kate Wells: 0.1%KFF Health News: 0.2%Special Pleading38.1%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.0%KFF Health News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.3%KFF Health News: 0.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 1.5%KFF Health News: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.3%Kate Wells: 0.9%KFF Health News: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.4%KFF Health News: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 1.3%KFF Health News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kate Wells: 0.4%KFF Health News: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Kate Wells: 0.2%KFF Health News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

97 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.