Once again, you make it difficult to read the text by inserting URLs the reader's eye must skip around, instead of making links, the way the Web is supposed to work. Writing for the Web is a 21st century skill, and you need to acquire it confidently.

The substance is also familiar in way: it's the Mother Jones view of the issue. Taking their graphics to illustrate their points is fair, I suppose, although the sourcing could be more evident than a chopped-off watermark. It might be useful, in legal writing, to source a little more deeply than newspapers and magazines.

But the route to substantive improvement is to add some thinking of your own. The partisan balance of state legislatures accounts for the quantity of recent examples of the peculiar status of the abortion right, which is supposedly universal and really particular to a few states and counties in the US, but we have been in the same analytic condition since the decision in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

What the Mother Jones view can't include is precisely what you ought to write: an essay explaining why the right to terminate a pregnancy is so extensively and effectively disrespected when the First Amendment rights to free speech and exercise of religion, or the right to have a lawyer appointed at public expense in all serious criminal prosecutions, are uniformly protected throughout the country. If you start from the opinions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), itself, and then consider the resulting judicial and political outcomes, you can write succinctly and effectively an account of the difficulty securing a "freedom to" in a system of rights about "freedom from." Joined to the analysis offered by Larry Tribe you could go here from reproducing journalism to doing creative legal thinking.