The
M
o
s
t

D
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
s

U.S. States to reside in

(if you are not a cisgender man)

A Tool Designed with Female Assigned at Birth (AFAB) and Femme Folx' Safety in Mind

by CAROLINE CULLINAN
and LEONARDO NICOLETTI
Published May 16th, 2022

As leaked by Politico on May 2, 2022, the Supreme Court vote to overturn Roe v. Wade further exemplifies institutional harm towards folx who do not identify as cisgender men. In recognizing a persistent attack on the rights of people of marginalized genders, we created the following tool. Specifically focused on the safety of female assigned at birth (AFAB) and femme folx, an Overall Danger Index has been created to identify US states that have been rendered more or less dangerous for those who are not cisgender men. In creating this tool, we hope to highlight and bring greater transparency to the fact that across all US states, institutional systems of oppression perpetuate gender-based harm.


Interested in understanding what went into this Overall Danger Index? Scroll through the following story to find out. Alternatively, click to jump to the bottom of the screen and access our tool immediately.



Scroll

arrow_drop_down
MEWIVTNHWAIDMTNDMNILMINYMAORNVWYSDIAINOHPANJCTRICAUTCONEMOKYWVVAMDDEAZNMKSARTNNCSCDCOKLAMSALGAHIAKTXFL
Firstly, what constitutes danger?




Additionally, how does danger vary across states?
In creating the Overall Danger Index for our tool, several sub-indices were considered:
the erosion of abortion rights

reproductive health services support

violent crimes committed against women

state-level legal protections
As outlined by a cartogram approach, we consider each of these sub-indices and, ultimately, our Overall Danger Index at the state-level.
First, in creating the Erosion of Abortion Rights Sub-Index, we have considered state stances on banning or greatly restricting access to abortion if Roe v. Wade is to be overturned.

In the following cartogram, each square represents a US state, and the level of completion of each circle within each square represents the risk to the right of abortion imposed by each state. For example, squares (i.e., states) denoted by full circles have trigger laws that would ban abortion. Squares denoted by circles that are two-thirds completed represent states that are likely to restrict access to abortion. Squares marked by one-third completed circles indicate states that pose no imminent threat to access to abortion. Finally, if not marked with a complete or incomplete circle, a state legally protects abortion and an overturn of Roe v. Wade does not pose a risk to residents of that state.
In the following example, we can see that Washington legally protects rights to abortion, regardless of a Roe v. Wade overturning.
It can also be observed that while New Hampshire does not have laws that legally protect the rights to abortion, an overturning of Roe v. Wade is unlikely to threaten residents' access to abortion.
However, in states like Florida, if Roe v. Wade is to be overturned, state action to try and ban abortion is likely.
Finally, states like Arizona have trigger laws in place that will ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
In a similar vein, the Reproductive Health Services Sub-Index was then created in order to better understand the inaccessibility of reproductive health services per state. In calculating this sub-index, the number of Title X centers, publicly funded family planning centers, and abortion providers per state were considered. Per capita public expenditure for family planning was also considered. Additionally, state mandatory in-person counseling for access to abortion was noted. For each state, the distribution of reproductive services was also taken into account, and the percentage of state counties with a known abortion provider was considered. Finally, state population was also noted.
With the same cartogram approach, each state's Reproductive Health Services Sub-Index score can be observed. Here, squares denoted by full circles represent states that score 100% on the Reproductive Health Services Sub-Index. This means that these states provide the most reproductive health support to residents when compared to other states. Contrastingly, squares denoted by partial circles with smaller accompanying percentages represent states that provide fewer reproductive health support to residents.
For example, it can be observed that both Alaska (58%) and Washington D.C. (58%) provide the most reproductive health services to residents.
Contrastingly, Texas (6%) lacks the most in reproductive health services for residents.
We then considered instances of homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault committed against women per state in order to calculate the Violent Crime Against Women Sub-Index. In calculating this sub-index, state-level violent crime data for the year 2020 was considered in relation to the most recent state-level female population data.
Similarly to the previous cartograms and sub-indices, the following cartogram outlines each state's Violent Crime Against Women Sub-Index score. Here, squares denoted by complete circles or almost-complete circles represent states that score highest on the Violent Crime Against Women Sub-Index. In these states, women are subjected to higher levels of violent crime. Squares marked by partial circles with smaller accompanying percentages represent states where women are subjected to lower levels of violent crime.
Here, we can see that women are subjected to the least amount of violent crime in the state of New York (11 violent crimes/100k women).
In Arkansas (688 violent crimes/100k women), however, women are subjected to the most amount of violent crime.
Finally, in creating the Legal Protections Sub-Index, we have considered whether or not a state offers critical justice-based legal protections for women's rights as outlined by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security (GIWPS). In calculating this sub-index, we considered whether or not a state has laws for: 1) protection of all workers from sexual harassment in the workpace, regardless of company size; 2) guaranteed unempoyment benefits for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; 3) mandated parental leave; 4) mandated minimum wage above the low-income threshold; 5) ratified Equal Rights Amendment; and 6) required relinquishment of firearms from abusers subject to domestic violence protective orders.
In this cartogram, each state's score for the Legal Protections Sub-Index can be observed. States that have the most legal protections for residents are indicated by squares with complete or almost-complete circles. States that have the least legal protections for residents are marked by squares with partial circles and smaller accompanying percentages.
In our last example, we can see that Oregon (83%) provides the most legal protections for residents.
Shockingly, residents of Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida do not have any legal protections.
In considering all of these sub-indices, we created our Overall Danger Index.
As illustrated here, Washington D.C. (20%) scores the lowest on our Overall Danger Index, rendering it the safest place for female assigned at birth (AFAB) and femme folx to reside in.
On the other hand, with a calculated value of 97%, Arkansas scores the highest on our Overall Danger Index, making it the most dangerous place for female assigned at birth (AFAB) and femme folx to take up residence.
But what do politics have to do with it?
Our analysis illustrates that red states (i.e., states whose voters predominantly choose the Republican Party) are consistently more dangerous than blue states (i.e., states whose voters predominantly choose the Democratic Party) for female assigned at birth (AFAB) and femme folx. In fact, our Overall Danger Index indicates that, on average, red states are 74% more dangerous than blue states for these people.
Interested in learning more? Check out our tool and explore the data for yourself.
explore the app

METHODOLOGY

The analysis behind this visual essay makes use of data from the Guttmacher Institute, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS) and the United States Census Bureau. The indices presented in this piece were calculated as follows:

Erosion of Abortion Rights Sub-Index: For a given state, this Sub-Index reflects its Stance on Abortion Rights Given a Potential Roe v. Wade Overturning. Each state can be assigned a score of 0% (no risk of erosion: abortion is legally protected), 33% (low risk of erosion: abortion is not legally protected but the state does not have trigger laws in place to restrict or ban abortion), 66% (high risk of erosion: abortion is not legally protected and the state has trigger laws in place to restrict abortion rights) or 100% (ban: abortion is not legally protected and the state has trigger laws in place to ban abortion).
Reproductive Health Services Sub-Index: For a given state, this Sub-Index reflects its level of accessibility to reproductive health services. To calculate this sub-index, the average of the normalized values for: (1) the per capita number of Title X centers; (2) the per capita number of publicly funded family planning centers; (3) the per capita number of abortion providers; (4) the per capita public expenditure for family planning; (4) whether the state has mandatory in-person counseling for access to abortion; and (5) the percentage of the state's counties that have a known abortion provider is used.
Violent Crime Against Women Sub-Index: This Sub-Index reflects the rate at which women are subjected to violent crime in a given state. To calculate this index, we calculated the average of the (1) number of homicides per 100k women, (2) number of rapes per 100k women, (3) number of aggravated assaults per 100k women and (4) number of robberies per 100k women. This average is then normalized on a scale from 0 to 1.
Legal Protections Sub-Index: This Sub-Index reflects the degree to which a state offers critical justice-based legal protections for women's rights as outlined by the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace, and Security (GIWPS). To calculate this sub-index, we scored each state on a scale from 0 to 6 based on whether a state has laws for: 1) protection of all workers from sexual harassment in the workpace, regardless of company size; 2) guaranteed unempoyment benefits for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking; 3) mandated parental leave; 4) mandated minimum wage above the low-income threshold; 5) ratified Equal Rights Amendment; and 6) required relinquishment of firearms from abusers subject to domestic violence protective orders. Each state's score is then divided by 6.
Overall Danger Index: The Danger Index represents an average score across all sub-indices, and thus reflects an overall level of danger for each state. It is calculated as follows: Danger Index = ((Erosion of Abortion Rights Sub-Index + (1 - Reproductive Health Services Sub-Index) + Violent Crime Against Women Sub-Index + (1-Legal Protections Sub-Index))/4.

The main visual element used in this project (radial bar chart) was inspired by one of W.E.B. Dubois's visionary data visualizations which can be found on the cover of the book W.E.B. Dubois's Data Portraits: Visualizing Black America. Each of the analysis, design, and development elements of this project were conducted in JavaScript. This webpage, along with the data visualizations, is built with the Svelte framework and the D3.js JavaScript library. The scrollytelling functionality was achieved using Svelte's implementation of Scrollama.js developed by Russel Goldenberg and with the help of Connor Rothschild's awesome tutorial. The code behind this application is freely available on Github.