The Post-Roe Surprise: More Abortions 69%

By Reveal83%

8/1/2026, 12:01:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, In-Group Bias, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.8% saturation with 70 hits. Analysis detected 458 faulty-reasoning hits from 201 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.8% and a BS Rank of 69% (7,819 of 25,212 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.00% of the article peer group.

Access to medication abortion in the years since Covid and the fall of Roe v. 
Wade has completely reshaped the abortion access landscape in America. 
“There’s this irony that’s actually happened,” says Dr. 
Angel Foster, an abortion provider and researcher. 
“Tragically, 33 to 40 percent of women of reproductive age now have less of a right to an abortion. 
But access for many people has increased.” 
Foster is the founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, a clinic whose work is one major player in why abortions are up. 
Massachusetts and almost half the states in the US have passed shield laws that legally protect abortion providers. 
The one Foster operates under allows her to prescribe abortion pills to patients in states with abortion bans. 
And while the battleground may be shifting as medication abortions grow more common, the war is far from over. 
This week on Reveal, we explore post-Roe America through the eyes of three women with three very different missions: Foster, who offers medication abortions nationwide; a courier who risks arrest to stockpile abortion pills for an uncertain future; and a conservative activist whose life’s work is trying to stop them both. 
Confirmation Bias
11.9%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
5%
Framing Effect
3.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
9.5%
Negativity Bias
34.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
25.4%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7.5%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
9%
False Dilemma
34.8%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
9.5%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
16.9%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
9.5%
Quote-first Misdirection
4%
Biased Writer Voice
7.5%
Indoctrination
25.4%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

201 words analyzed.

Analysis

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