Reviewer’s report
Title:  Crowdfunding Abortion: An Exploratory Thematic Analysis of Fundraising for a Stigmatized
Medical Procedure
Version: 0 Date: 07 Oct 2019
Reviewer: Rachel Jones
Reviewer's report:
This is an interesting analysis using a novel data source. It has the potential to make a contribution to
the field, but it needs some work before it gets to that point. 
Most troubling is the authors framing of GoFundMe as an organization that should obtain equitable
outcomes. GoFundMe allows individuals to generate stopgap funding for a variety of purposes. It is not
responsible, nor should it be, for imposing equitable outcomes. That people have to crowdsource for
basic healthcare is inequitable, but it is not GoFundMe's responsibility to impose equitable outcomes
among its users. 
Additionally, while the comparison between the two campaigns (those intended to provide access to
abortion and those intended to support individuals who chose not to have abortions) is interesting, it's
inappropriate to make too much of the differences in the outcomes such as facebook shares and money
raised. Social networks are an important component of GoFundMe; people who seek money for
abortions may only circulate it to select friends and family because they don't want this situation to be
widely known. Yes, this is based on stigma. But the potential unwillingness of some individuals to
widely distribute their campaign will mean fewer facebook likes, fewer contributions, etc. This is a
problem of society, not GoFundMe. 
Abstact: The background section is too long and detailed. Abstracts should be concise.
 
Background: The last sentence of the first paragraph (lines 81-82) is less relevant. And I'm skeptical
that 3% of US residents have hosted a crowdfunding campaign. Having this info at the getgo set me up
to be skeptical of the subsequent information in the paper. 
The sentence 109-111 doesn't make sense, please elaborate/explain.
Findings: 
Line 157, 192: I think the authors mean pro-choice ; this  mistake—or inability to recognize the
difference between prolife and Prochoice suggests that authors are very unfamiliar with the field of
reproductive rights. 
Lines 189-195: These organizations are called abortion funds and there are more than >100 of them in
the US. Visit the website for the National Network of Abortion Funds. 
Line 196: this is not a theme, it's a "misc" category of cases that can't be classified. 
It's odd that the themes are not presented in order of number of cases. That is, it is conventional to start
with the most popular/common themes and end with the least common.
Discussion: This is too much repeating of figures already presented in the Findings section (lines 268-
275, 286-288, etc.). This part of the paper should be used for synthesis and interpretation. 
And, per the above, the Concerns About Medical Crowdsourcing needs to be substantially revised.
Abortion is a standard medical procedure that should be covered by health insurance or, like other
services, provided free to individuals who have no insurance and can't afford to pay out of pocket. That
this is not the current situation is inequitable. Choosing not to have an abortion should also be an
option, and the lack of economic support for pregnant women and infants (including access to health
care, free or subsidized childcare, family allowances and quality education) motivates some individuals
to seek out additional funding. One could argue that the differences in fundraising are due to the fact
that raising a child costs substantially more than having an abortion. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
Yes
Does the work include the necessary controls?
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.
Unable to assess
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the data shown?
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.
No
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manuscript or would you recommend an additional
statistical review?
If  an  additional  statistical  review  is  recommended,  please  specify  what  aspects  require  further
assessment in your comments to the editors.
Not relevant to this manuscript
Quality of written English
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this
manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose
financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the
manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds
or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If
your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare I have no competing interests.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my
report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any 
attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my 
report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to 
be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not
be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal