Abstract
Current research shows that news stories on COVID-19 influence Americans’ opinions on most aspects of the pandemic. This study aims to better understand newspaper narratives of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative textual analysis of newspaper articles in the New York Times uncovered common themes in coverage. Relevant themes are reexamining women’s reproductive rights, highlighting inequalities in the U.S. health care system and uncertainty/fear among pregnant women and women’s health professionals. Theoretical contributions are discussed.
The COVID-19 pandemic has dominated the U.S. news cycle since March of 2020 (Pew Research Center, 2020a). A recent Pew Research Center study has found that 61% of Americans routinely follow COIVD-19 information on both local and national news outlets (Pew Research Center, 2020b). This upward trend in audience engagement is present in the newspaper industry as many U.S. newspapers reported upticks in digital subscriptions during the pandemic (Jacob, 2020). For example, the Manhattan Mercury, a daily newspaper serving the Kansas State University community and the Fort Riley U.S Army base, reported that it doubled its digital subscriptions and increased page views on its website by 30% as a result of consumers’ heighted interest in news about the COVID-19 pandemic (Ujiyediin, 2020).
As Americans continue to focus their attention on pandemic news in local newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, it is critical for researchers to analyze and understand how information about COVID-19 is being presented and disseminated. It is understood that news framing affects public perception of a topic, influencing the attitudes and actions of news consumers (Goffman, 1974). Current research on COVID-19 finds this to be true. A recent study has found that Americans who relied on different news outlets for COVID-19 information had significantly different attitudes about pandemic issues, including virus origin, vaccine availability and virus health risks (Pew Research Center, 2020b).
Feminist scholar Maud Ceuterick (2020) argued that news coverage of the pandemic has exacerbated long-established social, cultural and gendered issues and made them more visible to the public. She argued, “The 2020 coronavirus pandemic has not only been a health crisis but also a crisis of . . . patriarchy” (Ceuterick, 2020, p. 896). In the same vein, Kay (2020) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic has made gendered issues like motherhood, the home and care work “hyper-visible” as narratives about domestic issues continue to be highlighted in the news media.
As such, this study explores newspaper coverage of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study employs a qualitative textual analysis of the New York Times to analyze newspaper narratives of pregnancy during the pandemic. This study is significant because it fills an important gap in the literature. There is an insightful, yet small, collection of research on news narratives of pregnancy, and an even smaller collection of research on news narratives of pregnancy during public health crises. Studies on news narratives of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic are still emerging and so this study is at the forefront of new research trends. In addition, the findings of this study offer practical implications, as previous research shows that news narratives affect public health policies and public opinion on health topics. Theoretical contributions and practical implications are later discussed in further detail.
Literature Review
Journalism and Public Health
Journalists make individual choices when writing, producing and delivering news stories and these choices influence how the public receives information. News framing describes the ways in which journalists portray certain topics to the audience, thus influencing public perception on the topic at hand (Goffman, 1974). Health communication is also subject to news framing as journalists work with medical and public health professionals to co-produce and share public health knowledge (Coleman et al., 2011).
Journalism during a disease outbreak or pandemic is essential to disseminate critical information that directly affects the lives and safety of the public (Choi & McKeever, 2019). However, there is challenges journalists face when reporting on a major health crisis. Through qualitative interviews, Thompson (2019) found that lack of specialized health reporters was an issue during the Ebola epidemic. Newsroom cutbacks and the focus on breaking news caused newsroom managers to eliminate health reporter positions in favor of hiring more general assignment reporters. This led to lack of health reporting overall. Klemm et al. (2019) argued that specialized health reporters are better equipped to withstand the journalistic pressures of reporting on a major health crisis.
Journalists face external pressures when reporting on health issues. Thompson (2019) found that many health reporters’ stories were overly influenced by newsroom management and editors. Through qualitative interviews, Gearhart et al. (2018) found that journalists recognized health stories as top priority, but it was not a priority among newsroom management, leading to an overall de-emphasis of health reporting in newsrooms. Y. Lee et al. (2019) found that the specific resources of the news outlet influenced how health stories were relayed to the public. They conducted a content analysis comparing local news stations’ coverage of health issues and found that stations with more organizational resources provided more developed and localized content to audiences than those with less resources available (Y. Lee et al., 2019).
News coverage of health issues can have direct influence on the health-related behaviors of audiences. Shaffer et al. (2018) conducted a longitudinal study and found that health stories on a certain medication directly affected audience’s future use of that medication. More pertinent to the study at hand, Kennedy-Hendricks et al. (2016) conducted an experiment on the impact of news narratives on opioid use during pregnancy. They found that news stories had a significant impact on public opinion and perceptions of the topic. The findings of Chan et al. (2018) expanded upon this point. They conducted a survey on Zika and pregnancy and found that news narratives about Zika led to tangible changes in protective behaviors in households with current or intended pregnancy (Chan et al., 2018).
Journalists have great opportunities when reporting on health stories while also dealing with unique challenges. The way they choose to produce and share these health-related news stories has direct and indirect impacts on public option and actions. News reports on health issues during pregnancy can have major impacts on individuals, medical systems and lawmakers.
News Narratives of Women’s Reproductive Health
The relationship between women’s bodies and the media has been a focal point of research for feminist scholars for decades. Research on this topic is wide-ranging and transdisciplinary (Coleman, 2008). News narratives of women’s reproductive health include such topics as pregnancy, motherhood, prenatal health care and women’s reproductive rights. Women’s reproductive rights, specially, have been a hot topic in the U.S. news media since Roe v. Wade and research on news coverage of this issue continues to emerge and grow.
Armstrong and Boyle (2011) conducted a longitudinal content analysis of news coverage of abortion-related protests and rallies from 1960 to 2006. They found that women were vastly underrepresented as news sources, suggesting that “those most directly affected by the issue—‘average’ women—are underrepresented in news coverage” (Armstrong & Boyle, 2011, p. 173). Previous research suggests that the choices reporters make influence public opinion on abortion (Andsager, 2000). It is important, then, to understand how reporting on abortion from a male perspective can have significant impacts on public opinion and public policy regarding women’s reproductive rights.
Small details as specific as a reporter’s word choice can affect public perception of a news topic. Gao et al. (2011) argued that “news cues are important because specific word choices are powerful descriptors that can shape the public’s understanding of certain issues” (p. 90). To test this, Simon and Jerit (2007) manipulated newspaper articles on partial-birth abortion by interchanging the words “baby” and “fetus.” Results of their experiment indicated that any mention of the word “baby” significantly shifted participants’ attitudes toward banning partial-birth abortion (Simon & Jerit, 2007). It is important, then, for journalists to understand how their decisions can influence public attitudes.
In line with the current study, research on news coverage of the impacts of disease on pregnancy is also a growing field. Ribeiro et al. (2018) conducted a content analysis of newspaper articles about pregnancy and the Zika virus. Findings suggested that pregnant women were portrayed as both victims of Zika and, at the same time, responsible for not getting Zika. These polarized narratives fail to take into account the importance of social factors, including socioeconomic status. For example, pregnant women of a lower socioeconomic status tend to have more problems with Zika because of lack of health care, lack of education and lack of access to resources (Ribeiro et al., 2018).
Lack of awareness of social constraints was also a concern in studies regarding news coverage of fetal alcohol syndrome (FASD). McCallum and Holland (2018) conducted a textual analysis of newspaper articles about pregnancy and alcohol consumption. They found that the articles offered contested evidence and advice and did not take into account the social circumstances of pregnant women from different backgrounds. The authors argued that this caused anxiety and guilt among pregnant women because news coverage unjustly simplified a complex issue down to a “choice not to drink” (McCallum & Holland, 2018). The authors argued that the “choice not to drink” can be an easy one for some pregnant women, but may be extremely difficult for pregnant women without proper support systems (McCallum & Holland, 2018).
Eguiagaray et al. (2016) conducted a similar study on news coverage of FASD. They found two prevalent frames in news coverage of FASD: a frame of sympathy and a frame of shame. News stories elicited reader sympathy for children diagnosed with FASD while at the same time shaming mothers who drank while pregnant. The authors argued that these frames might lead to shame and confusion for those afflicted with FASD. Instead, the authors suggested that media reporting should discourage these stigmatizing frames and open a conversation into the role that government and the alcohol industry might play in FASD (Eguiagaray et al., 2016).
Reducing stigma among pregnant women was also the goal of a study conducted by Kennedy-Hendricks et al. (2016). They performed an experiment on news narratives of pregnant women abusing opioids. They found that the way the narrative/woman was framed affected the blaming attitudes of the public, with women of higher socioeconomic status receiving less individual blame from participants in the study. Kennedy-Hendricks et al. (2016) hoped their study would result in reducing stigma and, instead of instilling blame, garner support for public health policies that provide help to pregnant women dealing with opioid addiction.
News narratives surrounding pregnancy in any capacity are important because of their potential impact on public perception and action. Chan et al. (2018) studied Zika and pregnancy and found that changes in media information coincided with changes in protective behaviors in households with current/intended pregnancy. The more aware the pregnant women were of the dangers of Zika, the more precautions they took to avoid contracting the disease (Chan et al., 2018). As the aforementioned research shows, news coverage of pregnancy and related women’s health issues can have major impacts on the perceptions and actions of pregnant women, policy makers and the general public.
As per the aforementioned literature and gaps in the literature, the following research questions were formulated:
Method
The goal of this study is to understand and analyze newspaper narratives of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. To accomplish this goal, an article search was conducted on the digital version of the New York Times. The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the United States. McCombs called the New York Times “a major agenda-setter among the news media” and noted how it has historically influenced other national newspapers, local newspapers and broadcast news (McCombs, 2001, p. 287). Through a content analysis of national and local news outlets, Denham (2014) found that reports in the New York Times shaped news reports in other media organizations. Thus, the New York Times is a good gauge for general trends in the news media in the United States. In addition, previous studies have successfully used samples solely from the New York Times to reach their conclusions (Benoit et al., 2005; Khanjani, 2020).
A Boolean search of “pregnancy and COVID-19” was conducted during the date range of March 13, 2020 (the day President Trump declared COVID-19 a national emergency) and June 30, 2020 (the date all U.S. states had opened back up in some capacity). Some researchers consider June 2020 the end of the “first wave” of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. (Ioannidis et al., 2021). The search returned 111 articles. Each headline and lead was quickly analyzed for relevancy, filtering the 111 articles down to a total of 87 relevant articles to be included in the sample. The sample size was consistent with similar research on news coverage of pregnancy during health crises in the United States (Eguiagaray et al., 2016; McCallum & Holland, 2018; Ribeiro et al., 2018).
A qualitative textual analysis of the 87 articles in the sample was conducted. First, a thorough reading of each article was completed. Then, the research team identified certain elements of each news story, including the key voices presented, the overall tone and the main topic of each article in the sample (Blood & Holland, 2004; McCallum & Holland, 2018). Following the preliminary mapping and open coding exercise, the research team collectively discussed the emergence of themes around these elements and three themes emerged as main findings. This method was based off of similar studies exploring gender in media texts through qualitative textual analyses (Dworkin & Wachs, 2004; McAllister et al., 2015).
Findings
The textual analysis revealed three overarching themes among newspaper coverage of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. These themes are reexamining women’s reproductive rights, highlighting inequalities in the U.S. health care system and uncertainty/fear among pregnant women and women’s health professionals.
Reexamining Women’s Reproductive Rights
RQ1 asked, “How did COVID-19 restrictions influence news narratives of pregnancy?” Findings show that news narratives focused on how COVID-19 restrictions limited access to terminating pregnancy, access to fertility treatments to get pregnant and visitation rights during prenatal appointments and childbirth. COVID-19 restrictions limited women’s reproductive rights in unprecedented ways and journalists were quick to report these controversial stories. Some stories were overviews of these restrictions, some discussed the restrictions through a political lens and others recounted the individual experiences of women who were affected by COVID-19 restrictions on women’s reproductive rights.
Access to abortion was a common theme across newspaper articles. Some states used the nationwide shutdowns caused by COVID-19 to limit women’s access to abortion. Headlines such as “Texas and Ohio Ban Abortions due to ‘Non-Essential Surgeries,’” “Red States Are Exploiting Coronavirus to Ban Abortion” and “Coronavirus Created an Obstacle Course for Safe Abortions” underscore the prevalence of this issue. Some states deemed abortions “non-essential” procedures and forced clinics to shut down in the name of public health and safety.
Some journalists argued that anti-abortion politicians, especially in Republican states, took advantage of the pandemic to push their own political agenda. One journalist wrote, “While America’s attention has been consumed by the coronavirus crisis, politicians who have long wanted to do away with abortion rights have seized their chance.” Some medical professionals agreed that politics were getting in the way of women’s health and safety during the pandemic. One doctor who was interviewed noted the misogynistic undertones of these particular COVID-19 restrictions, saying, “governments failed to make women’s health needs a priority,” arguing that “women and girls should not be shoved to the end of the line.”
Women in restricted states who sought abortions were forced to either wait until the shutdowns ended or travel to nearby states that allowed abortions to continue. One article interviewed a woman who traveled 780 miles to get an abortion. She was afraid to travel during the pandemic but had no choice. Another journalist noted how irresponsible it was for governors in Republican states to “lump pregnancy termination in with elective procedures like cataract surgery and joint replacements” because unlike these surgeries, abortions need to be performed in a certain time period and “can’t simply be put off until this catastrophe is over.” Either way, what is a legal right for women in the United States was taken away under the premise of COVID-19 and the news cycle was quick to recognize and report on it. Journalists were able to raise awareness to these injustices by publishing articles describing the battles these women were facing. Most articles were critical of the abortion restrictions and emphasized women’s access to abortion as a right that should not be taken away, no matter the circumstances.
Interestingly, on the contrary, a woman’s right to motherhood was also a common topic in the news cycle during the pandemic. Like abortion clinics, many fertility clinics were forced to shut down due to COVID-19 restrictions. Women were denied access to fertility treatments such as elective surgeries, fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization (IVF). News headlines like “Getting Pregnant Was a Challenge. Then the Coronavirus Happened” and “Experts Say Maybe Not Best Time to Get Pregnant” recounted individual stories of women trying to become mothers. One woman shared her own heartbreaking experience, saying how she completed the injections to stimulate egg production, then a surgical egg retrieval and embryo fertilization. However, 3 days before the embryos were to be implanted, the procedure was canceled due to newly implemented COVID-19 restrictions. She told the reporter, “I cried my eyes out for two hours.” Women who had spent thousands of dollars to begin their fertility treatments were, in some cases, unable to continue or finish their treatment cycles, draining them financially, physically and emotionally.
Headlines like “Some Fertility Clinics Stay Open Despite Unclear Guidelines” shared broader stories of the challenges facing fertility clinic staff during the pandemic. Fertility clinics faced government pressures, health and safety risks and financial issues that affected their decision to stay open or close during the pandemic. One nurse said, “fertility treatment is by no means elective,” citing the importance of keeping clinics open, especially considering the time-sensitive nature of fertility treatments. Others, however, cited lack of personal protective gear and concerns for staff safety for reasons why they closed. Journalists noted the “dizzying array of vague and, at times, conflicting instructions from states, cities and health agencies like the C.D.C.” that caused a lot of tension for fertility clinics when deciding how to deal with COVID-19 restrictions.
New and expectant mothers also struggled to maintain their rights during the peak of the pandemic. One journalist powerfully summarized the unparalleled struggles of expectant mothers during the pandemic, saying, “as the United States struggles to respond to the Covid-19 crisis, tens of thousands of women across the country are giving birth in unprecedented circumstances.” Many hospitals banned partners from prenatal appointments and even from being in the delivery room, forcing women to give birth with no emotional support present. Authorities said this decision limited the number of people who could potentially be exposed to COVID-19 in hotspot cities like New York. In addition, new mothers were given less time with their newborns, with some mothers only being able to hold their new baby for a few minutes. Headlines like “NYC Hospitals Banning Partners From Delivery Rooms,” “‘A Heart-Wrenching Thing’: Hospital Bans on Visits Devastate Families” and “Some Pregnant Women in New York City Will Have to Deliver Babies Alone” detailed the heartbreaking stories of women who were not allowed to give birth the way they had planned.
After learning of the COVID-19 restrictions put in place in her maternity ward, one expectant mother said, “I have so much anxiety now and literally have not stopped crying after hearing that my husband can’t be with me.” Another expectant mother was more concerned for her husband. She was heartbroken that he would miss the birth of their child, saying, “that’s a moment that doesn’t happen again.” Even women’s health care providers were upset with some of the restrictions. One doctor said turning away family and friends from patients was the “darkest experience of their professional lives.”
Women’s reproductive rights have been hot button issues in the United States for decades. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the restrictions implemented due to the pandemic, brought new challenges to light. Journalists were quick to recognize and report on these challenges and detail the unique struggles of women during the pandemic. Some restrictions were put in place in the name of public safety, while others were designed as political ploys. Deeming any of these reproductive rights “non-essential” devalues women’s experiences and highlights the gender biases still present in our political institutions and medical systems.
Highlighting Inequalities in the U.S. Health Care System
RQ2 asked, “How did newspapers portray the prenatal health care system in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic?” The COVID-19 pandemic prompted journalists to highlight inequalities present in the U.S. health care system, especially regarding women’s health and prenatal care. Many journalists wrote articles about how the current system is biased against women of color, low-income mothers and other marginalized groups of women. According to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2019), women of color are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women. Pressures on the health care system during the COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated this problem and newspaper headlines reflected these issues.
Headlines like “When Maternity Wards in Black Neighborhoods Disappear,” “Many Medical Decision Tools Disadvantage Black Patients” and “I’m Officially Scared: Giving Birth in a Hospital During a Pandemic” discussed the racial inequalities present in the U.S. health care system as made worse by the pandemic. These articles suggest that the lives of women of color are not as valued as the lives of White women, and White babies are more valued than babies of color. This racialized stigma leads to an imbalance in proper care between these groups of women. According to these newspaper articles, COVID-19 put pressure on an already strapped medical system, causing inequalities to be more visible.
One article highlighted a hospital in an area where 95% of the residents are Black. Due to the increased demand to care for COVID-19 patients, the hospital stopped delivering babies, and so did several hospitals in the surrounding areas, prompting the reporter to call the area a “maternity-care desert.” The closure of these maternity wards not only forced Black expectant mothers to travel farther from home to deliver their babies, but it also denied them the care of Black medical staff. One doctor explained how Black patients tend to have better relationships with Black doctors, saying, “There’s a trust factor. We have black men and women taking care of you. We got you.”
Low-income mothers faced their own set of unique challenges when trying to navigate the health care system during the pandemic. Headlines like “Pandemic Could Scar a Generation of Working Mothers,” “Some Pregnant Women Who Can Afford to Are Fleeing New York City” and “Why People Are Still Avoiding the Doctor” explained and analyzed these inequalities. According to these news articles, many pregnant women who could afford it were fleeing big cities to take refuge in the suburbs where there was less crowding in hospitals, more stable access to health care and lower COVID rates of infection. Privileged pregnant women were also able to travel to get abortions when their local areas denied them access.
However, this was not a possibility for most pregnant women, especially those in cities. One New York City midwife witnessed the disparity in opportunities for pregnant women firsthand, saying for “lower-income families, leaving isn’t even a consideration.” And so, many low-income pregnant women were forced to attempt to navigate an overcrowded and overworked health care system. In many cases, they did not get the medical care they needed. According to journalists, women with no insurance were skipping prenatal care during the pandemic because they could not afford it. Some skipped prenatal care because they were afraid of losing their jobs if they missed work for a doctor’s appointment. One pregnant woman said her employer told her she had to come into the office during the pandemic or be laid off, even after her doctor suggested she work from home. An advocate for these women was quoted saying, “This is old-fashioned pregnancy discrimination, and it’s against the law.” Injustices like these are especially dangerous as pregnant women are considered at increased risk of complications from COVID-19 (Ellington et al., 2020). In addition, as people flooded grocery stores and overstocked in fear, many low-income women could not find Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) items. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, WIC serves about half of all infants born in the United States.
Other marginalized mothers, like those in prison and single mothers, were also hit hard during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to newspaper articles like “Prisoner With Coronavirus Dies After Giving Birth While on Ventilator” and “Cycle of Arrests Leads Woman to Jail at a Dangerous Time,” many pregnant women in prison were not given access to adequate medical care and some died or lost their babies during the pandemic. Pregnant women in prison can face overcrowding and lack of proper nutrition, which can be detrimental to their health and the health of their babies, especially if they contract COVID-19. One inmate told a journalist about her traumatizing experience as an incarcerated pregnant woman during the pandemic. The journalist recounted, At the jail, officials denied her request for a mask and gloves . . . there was no hot water for hand washing. One of the two women in [her] cell was coughing. Terrified, she spent the night as far away from that woman as she could.
Single mothers dealt with their own set of challenges in a newly socially distanced world. Newspaper articles like “Single Parents Are Struggling, but Enduring, During the Pandemic” recounted the challenges single mothers dealt with. Many could not rely on family or friends for help due to lockdowns and social distancing. Many single mothers no longer had access to child care or other support services due to COVID-19 restrictions. One journalist highlighted the experiences of these women, saying, “now many parents have to go it alone and make gut-wrenching decisions.” An article titled, “Experts Fear Increase in Postpartum Mood and Anxiety Disorders” examined the mental health issues faced by many new mothers who were forced to go it alone during the pandemic.
Inequality in the U.S. health care system is nothing new (Gibbons, 2005). However, as the COVID-19 pandemic thrust the medical system into the journalistic spotlight, the prevalence of these inequalities, especially among women, reemerged as a major issue across newspaper headlines. The COVID-19 pandemic forced hospitals and other medical facilities to prioritize patients in ways they have never had to before. Unfortunately, Black, low-income, single and incarcerated mothers were placed at the bottom of the list. While privileged pregnant women were able to travel for better care and pay for home health care and child care, disadvantaged mothers were left to deal with maternity wing closures, lack of diverse medical staff and lack of empathy from employers and governmental institutions.
Uncertainty and Fear
RQ3 asked, “How did newspapers frame the mental health of pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic?” Findings show that newspapers highlighted the uncertainty and fear among pregnant women and women’s health practitioners during the pandemic. During the onset of COVID-19, very little was known about the disease and many questions arose. Pregnant women were especially concerned about the impacts of the disease on themselves and their unborn children. This fear of the unknown was a major theme in newspaper headlines during the pandemic. One nurse told journalists, “People are confused, and they’re upset, and they’re going into the labor and delivery units in a state of fight or flight.”
Newspaper headlines like “’You’re Already Worried’: Navigating Coronavirus While Pregnant,” “Pregnant in the Coronavirus Epicenter” and “Her Virus Test Came Back Positive. Three Hours Later She Had a Baby” detailed this fear and uncertainty. According to these articles, data on the impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy were inconclusive and some research had conflicting findings. There were no set guidelines for pregnant women to follow, other than the guidelines set out for the general public. The uncertainty led to fear. In one particular newspaper article, a pregnant woman asked, “What if we get the virus? What if you get it and can’t be there when he’s born? What if I get it and they isolate the baby?” Anxiety-inducing questions like these were common among women interviewed for the articles in the sample.
New mothers were also fearful of the impacts of the disease on their birth plans. One woman told journalists about her experience giving birth in a mask and being “shunned by staff members who were afraid of contracting the disease.” Another new mother recounted the fear and anxiety she felt giving birth in a hospital flooded with COVID patients, saying, “The whole recovery has been really brutal. I think the nurses are doing their best. And the moms are doing their best. But it is so traumatic being here. . .”
Some mothers were fearful that their maternity wards would be turned into COVID wards. Newspaper articles like “Pregnant and Scared of ‘Covid Hospitals,’ They’re Giving Birth at Home” told stories of pregnant women too afraid to follow their original birth plans. Other women were afraid their families would not be able to be there for the birth of their child. They were scared that their baby would not get to meet their grandparents, aunts or uncles for months. The newspaper article “Growing a Family in the Shadow of a Pandemic” told the stories of six new families. They wondered how they would afford prenatal care or a newborn if the pandemic caused them to lose their jobs. The health risks of the disease itself caused concern, but so did the societal and financial ramifications of a global pandemic.
Women’s health professionals were also concerned about the potential impacts of COVID-19 on pregnancy as most of the impacts are still under investigation by medical researchers. Newspaper articles like “Study Raises Concerns for Pregnant Women With the Coronavirus” and “How to Think About Pregnancy Risks” focused on interviews with women’s health professionals about the uncertainty surrounding COVID-19. Medical researchers are working to better understand how the virus can affect pregnant women and unborn babies, but new data emerge all the time. For some women featured in the articles, the fear of not knowing was the scariest part of being pregnant during the pandemic.
Pregnancy can already be an uncertain and scary time for many women and so being pregnant during a global pandemic can be terrifying. One woman interviewed for an article said, “‘It is akin, I imagine, to having a baby in post-apocalyptic times.” Another woman said, “I’m stuck at home with my parents and my new nemesis: a cat. But at least I’m not pregnant!” COVID-19 justifiably caused fear and anxiety in many people. Pregnant women, however, were fearful not only for themselves, but for the child they were carrying. The uncertainty and lack of available data on pregnancy and COVID-19 caused concern for women’s health professionals as well. Through their newspaper articles, journalists were able to tell the stories of these women, perhaps reassuring other pregnant women and new mothers that they were not alone in their feelings of doubt and anxiety.
This fear and anxiety transcended national borders, as some articles told of similar experiences of expectant mothers outside of the United States. An article entitled, “Indonesia’s New Coronavirus Concern: A Post-Pandemic Baby Boom,” detailed how women in Indonesia were terrified to get pregnant because many of them could not get contraceptives or see their health care provider due to the pandemic. Government officials increased this fear as government vehicles with loudspeakers drove through towns blaring this message: “You can have sex. You can get married. But don’t get pregnant.” Another article, “Ukraine’s Backlog of Babies Born to Surrogates Begins to Ease” told the story of genetic parents of babies born to surrogate mothers “waiting nervously, prevented by Ukraine’s rigid coronavirus restrictions, from entering the country to pick up their newborns.”
It is safe to say almost every single person on this planet has been impacted in some way by the COVID-19 pandemic, with many people dealing with intense feelings of fear and anxiety. Pregnant women and new mothers felt this fear and anxiety on heightened levels as they are already dealing with sleep deprivation, hormonal shifts and postpartum mood disorders. As one journalist put it, “The pandemic may affect us all, but its effects are not equal.”
Conclusion
This study employed a qualitative textual analysis of newspaper articles in the New York Times to explore and analyze news narratives of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis revealed three common themes among newspaper coverage: reexamining women’s reproductive rights, highlighting inequalities in the U.S. health care system and uncertainty/fear among pregnant women and women’s health professionals. Findings of this study add to the scholarly literature and serve as a catalyst for future research as discussed in the following sections.
Theoretical Contributions
The foundational feminist text, The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir first explored the notion of women’s lived experiences and their value (or lack thereof) in society. Findings of this study compliment more recent research on devaluation of women’s lived experiences, especially concerning motherhood (Åström, 2015; Dent, 2020; R. Lee, 2018). Pregnancy and childbirth, particularly, are still not given adequate attention and concern in our society. Findings of this study suggest women are still not in control of their birth experiences; pregnant women are treated unfairly by employers, medical facilities and governmental institutions (and this treatment is worse for marginalized women); pregnant women’s concerns are often overlooked or downplayed and women’s access to abortion and fertility treatments is not valued by society at large. This study found that these injustices were made worse by the COVID-19 pandemic, as new rules and regulations were allowed in unprecedented ways that negatively impacted already disadvantaged pregnant women and new mothers.
While the findings of this study compliment previous research on the devaluation of women’s lived experiences (Åström, 2015; Dent, 2020; R. Lee, 2018), it also contributes to the literature in new ways. This study fills a significant gap in research on news framing of women’s reproductive health during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is well-established literature on news framing of other public health crises like H1N1 (Gao et al., 2011) and Avian flu (Choi & McKeever, 2019), however, because COVID-19 is happening now, research on news framing of this pandemic is still emerging (Kay, 2020). There is also well-established research on news framing of women’s reproductive health and pregnancy in general (Eguiagaray et al., 2016; McCallum & Holland, 2018). However, there is little, if any, research on news framing of pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic because the topic is still playing out in real time. Findings of this study show the significant impacts the COVID-19 pandemic had on the experiences of pregnant women and new mothers, and so research on this topic is important, timely and needed.
Limitations and Future Research
Although considerable thought was invested in the planning and execution of this study, there are limitations that should be noted. Although these limitations should be discussed, they do not invalidate the findings of this study. Rather, they should be used to better understand the findings and inform future studies.
A sample from the New York Times during specific dates from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was used. While there were methodological reasons for these choices, perhaps using different media outlets and a different date range would have produced different results. While the New York Times is the newspaper of record for the United States, it does serve New York City, which was one of, if not the, hardest hit areas of the United States at the beginning of the pandemic. Perhaps these reporters living in these conditions were influenced in different ways than other reporters living in less affected areas. In addition, the beginning of the pandemic especially prompted a lot of fear and uncertainty. Perhaps reports during later parts of the pandemic, especially once the vaccines were introduced, would have had different frames and tones, considering the expanded knowledge of COVID-19. A specific time frame was used to collect the data for this research project. While there were valid reasons for the time frame chosen, perhaps a different time frame would have yielded different results.
Future research should focus on news narratives of pregnancy after more conclusive data on the impacts of COVID-19 on pregnancy are known. It would also be interesting to analyze news reports on the risks and benefits of getting a COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant. Data on the COVID-19 pandemic are still emerging, especially for pregnant women, who were not included in any COVID-related clinical trials. As new data come to light, so should research on this topic as to better understand the full and long-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the experiences of pregnant women and new mothers.