Reviewer’s report
Title:  Crowdfunding Abortion: An Exploratory Thematic Analysis of Fundraising for a Stigmatized
Medical Procedure
Version: 2 Date: 19 Dec 2019
Reviewer: Rachel Jones
Reviewer's report:
The word "equity" is used inappropriately in all but one place (page 17, line 44/350). That people have
to rely on GoFundMe for basic health care is an indicator of an inequitable health care system (in the
US, in particular). GoFundMe can be seen to perpetuate inequity--in this case by enacting stigma
(many people requesting money for abortion do not circulate these requests widely) and reinforcing
stigma (by some metrics, campaigns to obtain abortions are less successful than those asking for money
to raise a child). But this fundraising system should be expected to be equitable. This is what is
problematic about the authors' framework. The authors should also clearly explain why it is it less
equitable when individuals donate more money (by some metrics) to raise a child (including some with
birth defects that will require extra medical care) than to individuals seeking a wanted abortion. 
Abstract line 57: "substantially" is an overstatement as it does not apply all the measures examined in
the study.
Line 37/108: Crowd sourcing campaigns require engagement and activity on the part of posters and
contributors. It's not a matter of fate. 
The authors' suggest and/or reinforce biases in line 42/111 on page 5 ("whether for medical reasons or
not") and 39/324 page 16 "taken to term despite…" 
Line 287/13 (page 15): there were more of these campaigns so all other things being equal, so of course
they raised "much" more money. 
Table 2 is illegible, and being able to see all the track changes made the paper hard to read at a sentence
level. 
Are the methods appropriate and well described?
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.
No
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:
Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited
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 that 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