The Supreme Court decided to restrict abortion rights. One of the outcomes that will be less talked about is how more people in states with heavy restrictions will use search engines and social media to figure out how to manage their reproductive decisions.
Social media and search engine companies are not doing enough to stop the spread of misinformation about abortion. We no longer have time for this level of inaction because access to safe abortion is reaching a point of no return. Internet companies should not accept advertising money from groups that lie about abortion and should do a better job of removing posts with false information. Information like that isn't just confusing.
Abortion misinformation is the spread of false or misleading information about the risks and consequences of an abortion. It is similar to abortion misinformation that is spread to promote an anti abortion agenda. Disinformation can begets misinformation when someone naively spreads it by someone with disingenuous aims.
I know a lot about political agendas and misinformation. When I was growing up in Texas suburbs and rural Alabama, I was often told that abortion was harmful and shameful. Now that I study health misinformation, focusing on online information about reproductive health, it's clear to me that these admonishments were rife with misinformation and pushed by a religious and political agenda Many people are unable to make these distinctions online.
I don't need to look at my phone to find the same narratives posted by people who oppose abortion. I come into contact with false claims if I search for abortion information on social media or a search engine.
Research has shown that a lot of the information people find online about abortion is unreliable. Similar to the messages I received growing up in the Deep South, these messages carry religious and political meanings that are hard to distinguish from objective, evidence-based information. It's on purpose. Antichoice websites publish misleading or false information about abortion in order to mask the fact that it is antiscience. These sites are often pushed to the top of result pages by search engines.
The states with the most restricted access to abortion have the highest amount of online searches about the procedure. There has been a change in local policies on abortion in the U.S.
Despite the federal change to health care rights, abortion shame and stigma and a lack of access to quality health information or care from professionals are already reasons why anyone would seek information online The need for accurate abortion information is especially important for women of color and people with low incomes.
Do you think that social media platforms are just conduits for information? They make a lot of money from it.
According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, from January 2020 to September 2021, Facebook accepted between $115,400 and 140,667 for ads promoting abortion pill reversal. The procedure was stopped in clinical trials because of the risks. According to the center, 83 percent of searches for abortion carried an ad for abortion reversal, meaning that the vast majority of searches on the internet were neutral and helpful. The issue of false and misleading ads about abortion has not been adequately addressed by the two internet giants.
The problem is not just advertisements. Misleading information about abortion can be found in social media posts. Only one of the five top results for "abortion pill" contained information that was scientifically accurate and moderately accessible, meaning that it was written at a lower grade level. Three of them were from anti-abortion groups.
You can sign up for Scientific American's newsletters.
A study found that over half of the Web pages on abortion were filled with misinformation that could make it hard for someone to make a decision about abortion.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that abortion pill reversal is not supported by science after a simple search of the phrase "abortion pill reversal".
Crisis pregnancy centers are legal but unethical. Misinformation and misinformation that is misleading can affect a person's ability to make informed health decisions. There are likely further unknown health consequences given the challenging nature of research on misinformation.
Antichoice legislation is mirrored by online narratives. 70 percent of state-level abortion restrictions in 2016 were based on anti abortion lies, according to an analysis by the National Partnership for Women and Families.
The justices cite a case in which they upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in their opinion. Most abortions after 15 weeks are dangerous for the patient and the medical profession. According to the draft ruling, the protection of maternal health and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability can be achieved if abortion is restricted.
The statements are medically incorrect. The vast majority of abortions in the U.S. are performed at or before 13 weeks. These false statements are the same ones that are being spread on social media and come from anti-abortion groups, such as crisis pregnancy centers and Live Action.
The Supreme Court's continued shift from decisions based on science and evidence to ones based on political and religious ideology is reflected in this opinion. The two have a direct and indirect influence on each other.
The rise of mis- and misinformation about abortion demonstrates how political and religious ideologues are able to successfully game an internet system that has inadequate checks and balances and how those narratives can go on to become legally codified. They are more than just actors. The time is ripe for action. People who use these platforms have a right to honest, factual information in making huge life decisions such as whether or not to continue a pregnant woman. The question at stake is not just what actions are we willing to take to protect abortion access, but how far are we willing to let technology affect not only our opinions, but our health and livelihoods.
The views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those ofScientific American.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
