Introduction
The articles chosen for evaluation encompass considerations of whether abortion should be legal, highlighting important ethical, social, health, and human rights aspects of the issue. In their article for JCI Insight, Xing et al. (2023) argued that abortion rights are healthcare rights and that the history of abortion as a practice highlights the emphasis on women’s health and rights, and that there has been a tremendous step backward. In their article for AJPH, Magnan (2023) evaluated the challenges emerging in the attempts to reach a common ground on abortion in the United States and offered solutions to address the issues head-on.
Evaluating Resources in Practice
Both articles are current as they were published in peer-reviewed journals within the past year. In the context of exploring abortion’s legality, it is imperative to search for the most up-to-date sources as they are more likely to comment on current occurrences and mention relevant research to support claims. For example, Magnan (2023) quotes a Pew Research Center (2022) study that offered comprehensive data on the attitudes of Americans toward abortion and a variance in the acceptance of the practice based on age, gender, political or religious affiliation, and others.
The two articles are relevant because the authors acknowledge the necessity of legalizing abortion in the US and provide arguments in support of that. Regarding the author’s authority, Sanne Magnan is affiliated with the HealthPartners Institute in Bloomington, MN. The institution is engaged in various activities related to healthcare, research, education, and community outreach.
The authors of the study in JCI Insight are affiliated with the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Enze Xing is in the Medical Science Training Program; Rieham Owda and Charisse Owda work at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. In contrast, Kathleen Collins works for the Department of Internal Medicine. The University of Michigan Medical School is known for its groundbreaking research across various fields of medicine and biomedical sciences, as well as for innovation in medical care (University of Michigan Medical School, 2024). It offers a rigorous curriculum that integrates basic science education with clinical training, simulation-based learning, and opportunities for research and professional development.
When it comes to accuracy, the authors provide an insight into the available evidence and do not make unsubstantiated claims. Furthermore, Magnan (2023) commented on the misleading title of the Pew Research Center study and showed that Americans’ views on abortion vary depending on the stages of gestation, which offers a ground for discussion. An example of the accuracy of Xing et al.’s (2023) article is the review of laws passed in the country and the provision of data on how abortion bans affect patients, citing relevant research. Finally, the purpose of the articles is to argue in support of abortion’s legalization while also commenting on the challenges associated with it.
Conclusion
Based on the evaluation, both articles are suitable for inclusion in a research paper on the chosen topic. Comparing the two, the study by Xing et al. (2023) will be used to provide a comprehensive background on the issue, delving into the history of abortion laws in the US. The piece by Magnan (2023) will be used to offer a perspective on how to address some of the challenges associated with the legalization of abortion, such as liberty and sanctity. Among the two, Xing et al.’s (2023) article is more relevant because it includes a systematic review of the literature on the topic.
References
Magnan, S. (2023). The potential and challenges for common ground on abortion. AJPH, 113(4), 380-381.
Pew Research Center. (2022). America’s abortion quandary.
University of Michigan Medical School. (2024). Research drives discovery.
Xing, E., Owda, R., Loder, C., & Collins, K. (2023). Abortion rights are health care rights. JCI Insight, 8(11).