Canadian newspapers support mifepristone medical abortion to improve fulfillment of the right to health (2015-2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2015, mifepristone, the international gold standard for medical abortion, was approved for use in Canada. Our content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage describes arguments in favor or against medical abortion and the evolving regulatory framework for mifepristone from six months before approval until the last province included the medication as a publicly insured health benefit (2015-2019). Our study found an exceptionally high level of support for the approval, introduction and removal of regulatory barriers to mifepristone for medical abortion. Of 402 articles, 67% were pro-medical abortion, 25% presented balanced or neutral coverage and only 8% presented solely anti-medical abortion viewpoints. Of the 761 stakeholders cited, more than 90% made positive or neutral statements about medical abortion. Most articles discussed medical abortion as a health issue and contained arguments about how liberalization of the regulatory framework and public payment for mifepristone would improve abortion availability (68%), accessibility (87%), acceptability (34%) and quality (19%). Mifepristone’s introduction in Canada was presented in newspapers as a way to increase women’s health, specifically in rural areas where disparities in abortion access exist. Rather than formal balance, which presents contrasting arguments as equally valid even when the scientific evidence for one vastly outweighs the other, our study identified evidentiary balance where coverage aligned with the majority of evidence and expert opinion. Our results differ from analyses in other high-income countries (United Kingdom, United States) that have found that media frame abortion as a stigmatized and controversial issue or mention abortion predominantly with respect to electoral politics rather than as a health issue. The Canadian print media presented overwhelmingly favorable arguments towards the expansion of mifepristone medical abortion and served to destigmatize abortion by framing the introduction and universal coverage of medical abortion as fulfilling core components of the right to health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".