Contextually-Insensitive Stock Images: Ashamed Pregnant Lady Edition

This is the place where I find the content of an article more or less rational, but the stock image placement seems out of context, insensitive or just random.
Avatar:
Natalie P
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0
This is the place where I find the content of an article more or less rational, but the stock image placement seems out of context, insensitive or just random.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the inaugural post of Contextually Insensitive Stock Images! This is the place where I find the content of an article more or less rational, but the stock image placement seems out of context, insensitive, or otherwise, random. 

Today's CISI: The GOP Redefines Abortion and the Daily Beast Redefines Women Who Have Them (full article here).  

After reading the first paragraph, which explains that Republicans are working to redefine rape and slim the available healthcare coverage for abortions,  I found myself audibly muttering an exasperated WTF.  And then, I scrolled down to see the stock image associated with this post and my head tilted 40 percent and I gave the o_O face:

abortion1

What the hell is this image?  It's a young woman in a rural area wearing a long black dress who's like ELEVEN MONTHS PREGNANT -- in an article about women's right to abortion.  

Can you just imagine the Director of this photo shoot? "Now, hold your belly to show that you really do care about this baby.  But hold your head, too, like you just don't know what you're going to do. Keep the ringless finger visible to the camera." 

Michelle Goldberg wrote a very strong, very important article, but broke the #1 rule of stock images: Follow the Context. No image should have been used to illustrate this story, because one image will never be appropriate to generalize abortion's issues of race, class, geography, age, health, history, and politics.