Reviewer’s report
Title:  Crowdfunding Abortion: An Exploratory Thematic Analysis of Fundraising for a Stigmatized
Medical Procedure
Version: 1 Date: 06 Nov 2019
Reviewer: Rachel Jones
Reviewer's report:
The paper is improved but still needs work before it can be published. 
Something I didn't catch last round: It's unclear when and how long the GoFundMe ban on raising
money for abortion  was  in  effect  and how  it was  defined/enforced.  Did it apply to any and all
campaigns that referenced "abortion" or did it only apply to those raising money to pay for the
procedure. If it's the latter, the analysis uses data from time period the ban was in effect, and this would
automatically bias the findings. That is, if people weren't allowed to raise money for abortions for some
time between June 2011 and May 2018, this would result in fewer of these campaigns. 
It's more appropriate to refer to a fetus instead of a child (e.g., page 10). 
The authors need to acknowledge the role of social networks in these types of fundraising campaigns.
Users are actively encouraged to rely on social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc) to increase donations.
Because of the  stigma attached to abortion, many individuals  may be reluctant  to promote their
campaigns this way. The authors have no way of measuring how much effort recipients put into this
(only the extent to which other people shared it). The observation (per the response to reviewers) that
individuals were more likely to share the campaign with strangers than with friends and family should
be included in the findings. But this finding further emphasizes that these campaigns will get fewer
shares because they are being circulated amount strangers. 
The authors need to acknowledge that not having an abortion—raising a child—costs substantially
more than having an abortion. This is one reason for the differences in funds requested and raised. I
would also point out that the % of "need met" is slightly higher for abortion campaigns than for those
to not terminate a pregnancy: $146/$886=16% VS $3,345/$27,227=12%.
Page 12, lines 246-248. It's not necessary to describe every single scenario and those limited to 1 case
can be removed from the text. 
The authors need to do more to tone down their assertions in the Discussion. The study does not "show
that to have or need an abortion is viewed not as worthy of financial support as compared to those who
are choosing not to have an abortion…" (page 14, line 289). Your findings suggest that abortion stigma
keeps people from generating and promoting abortion fundraising campaigns. Per my above comment,
the % of need met was comparable between the two types of campaigns, perhaps even slightly higher
for abortion. Ditto for the language on lines 300, 319, 326-328. Perhaps look to this article as a better
way to frame and interpret the findings: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cars.12210
Figure/Table 2: Is the figure of $17606 is a typo/mistake? Also, I think the total figure in the last
column (32) is incorrect?  Part of the column was cutoff so it's hard to tell. 
Finally, the paper is poorly written, with lots of typos, omitted language and awkward text. The authors
might ask someone to read it with fresh eyes so that they can bring these issues to the authors' attention.
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.
Yes
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.
I am able to assess the statistics
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