@FFJ: Yes--you are missing the myriad legal restrictions and barriers to access allowed by individual states. In many states it is still by no means easy to come by a "legal" abortion, so one would presume that it is still quite possible to undergo an "illegal" abortion, possibly even inadvertently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... s_by_state
RE: News coverage. I like the Kristof article, but I think there's another explanatory factor that's a little more insidious but becomes obvious when you follow the money. It seems to me that the media coverage of Trump is partially designed to benefit Clinton, who is the preferred candidate of Big Media including Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, and Cablevision (
at least according to their campaign contributions over the years).
Not only does Trump make a fairly effective bogeyman to rally the liberal base around whichever opposing candidate the media presents (which is Clinton;
Bernie gets, comparatively, no airtime), the media also gets to ignore or downplay that Sanders is a liberal, non-racist, non-authoritarian outlet for a lot of the very same anti-establishment views and pro-working class sentiments (arguably more so than Trump). In other words, the media's constant Trumpeting successfully embedded the meme that anti-establishment sentiments are associated with Trump; thus marginalizing anti-establishment sentiments on the left and their flag-bearer.
Another way of looking at it: despite all the fear-mongering surrounding him, Big Media itself doesn't actually fear Trump. In fact, they go way back! He's a known entity, one they know how to exploit for their own ends just as well as he knows how to exploit them. Trump is not going to change anything in any meaningful way that affects big media execs. Same thing with Clinton. Politics as usual. Keep all that money in politics. Keep those political ads and contributions flowing.
Then they look at Sanders, who refuses to "feed the beast", who won't take or give them money, who wants to end Citizen's United, who is even more anti-establishment in many ways than Trump--and yeah, I can see why they're so eager to frame the discussion as "Look what Trump the Antichrist is up to now, oh, he's so anti-establishment--only Clinton can save us now!"
ETA: Actually, it's even more insidious than that, because remember, the media never had to present Clinton as an alternative at all. She came into the race with the biggest name recognition in politics. She was the inevitable candidate. So it's not that the media even had to present her as the alternative to Trump, per se. To benefit her, they simply had to overplay Trump and downplay Bernie, which is exactly what they did.
The same strategy was at play in the DNC when they limited the number of debates and scheduled them over holidays. People, especially democrats, "know" Clinton (or think they do). People don't know Bernie. The powers that be sure wanted to keep it that way.
And yet I'm guessing they emphatically don't mean the socialist Jew railing against poverty and economic injustice, denouncing the usurers and money changers in the temple, offering an open hand to strangers and help to the disenfranchised, warning of the destruction of the planet, 