WBEZ28%

Many women with high-risk pregnancies can’t get abortions in their home states. Illinois welcomes them. 12%

By Kristen Schorsch34%

8/3/2026, 3:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Anecdotal, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 855 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21% and a BS Rank of 12% (27,150 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.80% of the article peer group.

As states across much of the South and Midwest banned or further restricted abortions after the U.S. 
Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, they fueled a wave of people with high-risk pregnancies traveling to hospitals in Chicago. 
The prohibitions also spurred a group of doctors, hospitals, a nonprofit and the state of Illinois to try to make a challenging and expensive journey a little easier. 
“We’re really viewed as  one of the places of last resort,” said Dr. 
Laura Laursen, an OB/GYN at Rush University Medical Center who helped start what’s known as the Complex Abortion Regional Line for Access , or CARLA , in 2023 to help women with high-risk pregnancies get abortion care in an Illinois hospital. 
Even before Roe fell , Dr. 
Jonah Fleisher, an OB/GYN at UI Health, said women had to navigate a dizzying array of logistics to find an appointment. 
He would field calls from panicked patients in parking lots of abortion clinics. 
They had just learned ending their pregnancies there would be too risky. 
They were handed a list of hospitals to call. 
“They had already planned for weeks and sometimes even months to get that appointment, raise the funds, arrange for child care, time off of work, transportation  all the things to get to that appointment, whether from in state or out of state,” Fleisher said. 
Hoping to streamline that process after Roe fell, Gov. 
JB Pritzker’s administration helped launch CARLA . 
Three years later, the need has remained steady, said Fleisher, who co-directs the program with Laursen. 
CARLA receives about 40 referrals a week from around the country  around 1,500 referrals total over the past three years, including from Illinois. 
Women have come from more than 25 states. 
The nonprofit Chicago Abortion Fund has pledged about $3 million for medical expenses and other support, such as travel costs. 
Illinois has some of the strongest legal protections in the nation for patients seeking abortions and for doctors who provide them. 
More people travel to Illinois than to any other state for an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization that tracks abortions and supports reproductive rights. 
In 2025, just more than 140,000 women traveled to other states to end their pregnancies; nearly 1 in 4 came to Illinois, according to Guttmacher . 
A small percentage of women seek abortions in hospitals, data shows. 
They’re typically higher risk  they have heart issues, conditions that make anesthesia more risky, or have a history of hemorrhaging  and need more medical resources than they can get at an outpatient clinic, doctors say. 
Several patients who are referred to CARLA have a condition where the placenta grows too deeply into the wall of the uterus. 
It’s more common for women who have had a previous C-section, Fleisher said. 
A person can have serious bleeding during an abortion, and sometimes the only way to control the bleeding is a hysterectomy, he said. 
Through CARLA, doctors from around the country call a hotline and refer patients to a team of nurses and physicians in Chicago, who help coordinate appointments for patients at four health systems. 
They are UI Health, Rush, Northwestern Medicine and UChicago Medicine. 
Through the CARLA program, patients are referred to doctors and nurses at four health system: Rush Memorial Hospital, UI Health, Northwestern Medicine and UChicago Medicine. 
The Chicago Abortion Fund, known as CAF, can pick up the cost if patients can’t afford to. 
Since CARLA started, CAF has pledged to cover nearly $2 million in medical expenses for patients with complex medical needs, such as doctor appointments, hospital procedures and advanced ultrasound imaging. 
The average hospital bill for patients seeking abortions is a few thousand dollars but can be far more expensive depending on the level of care. 
That’s compared to $500 to $1,000 for an abortion at an outpatient clinic. 
Just 4% of CAF callers are people with complex medical needs who receive care in a hospital. 
But hospital bills make up about 25% of all of CAF’s spending on abortion care, compared to about 1.5% before Roe was overturned, said Meghan Daniel, senior director of programs at CAF. 
The organization also pledged to cover another $1 million related to logistics for these patients, from airplane tickets to childcare. 
In the first year of CARLA, about 40% of referrals were for out-of-state patients, compared to about 50% now, Fleisher said. 
More patients later in their pregnancies are being referred to the program, he said. 
It’s a sign that patients can’t get access in their home state, or something might have changed during their pregnancies, from a fetal diagnosis to losing their home or job, he said. 
“I think people, to some degree, always had this need,” Fleisher said. 
“There just wasn't access.” 
Kristen Schorsch is a senior reporter covering public health for WBEZ. 
Abortion bans are fueling a rise in high-risk patients heading to Chicago hospitals 
Illinois Gov. 
JB Pritzker is launching a hotline to help high-risk patients get abortions at hospitals 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.7%Kristen Schorsch: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Confirmation Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Kristen Schorsch: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 4.7%Kristen Schorsch: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic4.7%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Kristen Schorsch: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias11.8%This article: 1.9%Kristen Schorsch: 5.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.3%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Kristen Schorsch: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Kristen Schorsch: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 8.8%Kristen Schorsch: 8.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Negativity Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Kristen Schorsch: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.1%Halo Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Kristen Schorsch: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.7%Kristen Schorsch: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Appeal to Authority16.7%This article: 1.6%Kristen Schorsch: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%False Dilemma1.6%This article: 3.7%Kristen Schorsch: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.3%Kristen Schorsch: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Hasty Generalization2.3%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.2%Kristen Schorsch: 3.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion3.2%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.4%Kristen Schorsch: 2.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 12.2%Kristen Schorsch: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.0%Anecdotal12.2%This article: 1.4%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman1.4%This article: 4.6%Kristen Schorsch: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%Kristen Schorsch: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.6%This article: 4.8%Kristen Schorsch: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 9.6%Kristen Schorsch: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Indoctrination9.6%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristen Schorsch: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

855 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers40%attributed speech509writer words
Selected voice

Laura Laursen

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words12% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Laura Laursen: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Laura Laursen: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Laura Laursen: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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