The story of Brooke Alexander is a testament to how conservatives and liberals can look at the same story and see two very different outcomes.
The 18-year-old from Corpus Christi, Texas, found out she was pregnant and wanted an abortion. Due to the ban on abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat by the Texas Heartbeat Act, Alexander could not get an abortion and had the babies — twins.
While some see this as an infringement on her rights, others see this story as a lifeline extended to the babies who were unable to speak for themselves.
Specifically, conservatives read Alexander’s story as a success, saving the lives of two children. Liberals are horrified that Alexander could not have an abortion and was forced to carry the babies to term.
The wording in headlines of news organizations makes it obvious where they stand on the issue.
For example, the Washington Post titled their story, “This Texas teen wanted an abortion. She now has twins.” In contrast, LifeNews‘s headline is “Texas Teen Who Wanted Abortion Now Blessed With Twin Babies: ‘A Miracle From the Lord.’” Both news organizations have the exact same story and facts, but it’s clear to see which organization views the birth as a burden and which one sees it as a blessing.
Both articles explain that Alexander knew that if it weren’t for the Texas Heartbeat Act, she wouldn’t have had her babies. Because of this, her views on abortion have become more complex and difficult to articulate, though she does not regret her own decision.
“Who’s to say what I would have done if the law wasn’t in effect?” she said. “I don’t want to think about it.”
To put a more negative light on her life since the pregnancy, Caroline Kitchener of the Washington Post highlights, in detail, where Alexander might be if she didn’t have the twins: traveling to Hawaii, swimming with dolphins, pursuing her real estate license, among other things.
However, in the conservative article, Micaiah Bilger writes, “Though she feels like she has lost her freedom in some ways, she said she also loves her daughters, and being a mother feels natural to her.” This makes it clear to the audience that it was a necessary sacrifice for her to have those children.
For liberals, this story is a horrifying reality that would sweep the nation if Roe was overturned.
“Texas offers a glimpse of what much of the country would face if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer,” Kitchener says.
Unfortunately, you can’t take away a right that was not yours to begin with. For conservatives, Alexander’s story highlights what it truly means to give a voice to the voiceless.
Both articles end on very different notes, taking the same woman and story and producing very different versions of her life postpartum.
“Time to grab some lunch and head home; the babies would be hungry,” Kitchener concludes. The article ends by displaying this miserable teenager now stuck as a mother with burdensome twins. She could have been living a happy teenage life, child-free, if it weren’t for the Texas law.
LifeNews concludes with Alexander saying, “I think they can smell me. And that makes me feel so special.” This features a young woman stepping into her newfound role as a mother. Even through the difficulties, she recognizes the babies’ need for their mother and her need for them.
This is the perfect example of how both political sides can use the same exact story to push their own agenda — it just depends on where you’re standing.
Esther Wickham is a summer 2022 Washington Examiner fellow.
