Abortion and Paid Family Leave figure

[alinasmahl1]

Name

Alina Schnake-Mahl

Title

Abortion and Paid Family Leave Figure

Department

Urban Health Collaborative

Request type

Bespoke visualization

Request description

I'm hoping to make a figure that shows different policy statuses of states (abortion ban, proposed abortion ban, no abortion ban; Paid family leave, no paid family leave; paid family leave preemption, no preemption), with the states in the location of the US map...

I think geofacet mightttt get us close to the figure I'm hoping to make, but not quitee there.

Example

The first figure in this article https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-many-states-that-restrict-or-ban-abortion-dont-teach-kids-about-sex-and-pregnancy/ is what I'm thinking of.

Data

sent via slack (let me know if I should resend)

Notes

timeline ~ 2 weeks.

[ran-codes]

Proof of Concept

@alinasmahl1 I made a POC here. Let me know what you think and how you want to proceed!

Access Code

On the blog post

Fork this repository

The folder for this issue can be found here

[alinasmahl1]

This looks fantastic, thank you @ran-codes!!!

I updated the dataset-- would it be possible to use the new attached data? (I can also probably adapt the code to the new data, if that's easier!). But with the exception of updating the dataset, I think basically where we want to go with it for now! I think I should plan to show it to my co-authors, and then if I can't figure out how to make changes they request, then I'll follow back up with you?

[ran-codes]

I updated the dataset-- would it be possible to use the new attached data?

Yes send the code via slack or upload in this issue. I can update the figure with new data.

[ran-codes]

Updates can be found here

A few updates :

• 8-11-22 data was used
• i rescaled the abortion risk bar. i think the new data only has values of 0,1,2 so the color scale for rectancles now have only three shades. Let me know if this is not correct and you want to keep the original 1-5 scale.

[alinasmahl1]

This is so great, thank you!! really appreciate how you walk through what the code is doing!

• [x] Tiny thing, can we update the text about the preemption to say "Red triangles show state preemption of paid family policies

• [x] yes, the color rectangles should only have 3 values, but I'm wondering if we can make it ordinal, so uses it the terms "accessible, hostile, and illegal" ? rather than using a risk scale.

(also, just let me know if you'd rather I make these small edits-- I'm sure I can adapt the code since you've got it set up!)

[ran-codes]

your too kind 😊 !

made some quick changes that can be found here

[alinasmahl1]

@ran-codes I was really hoping I could update this myself, but I got a bit stuck. The article co-authors asked that we include another category in the abortion variable, and wondering if you can help me update the figure? I slacked you the updated data

[ran-codes]

sure thing

Some thoughts

The current viz has three data fields with represented by three visual layers (as shown below).

Proposed Update

To add another data field (Preempt + hositle/illegal?) we would need to add another visual layer to represent this new field. The original example also had 4 data fields and 4 visual layers (rectangle shading, blue triangle, orange triangle and the outline (starred below).

Questions

So just a few things to confirm with you:

• Confirm that the data field we are adding is Preempt + hositle/illegal?
• Do you want to representing this new field visually with outline (as circled above)?
• If you do what should the legend look like (title? label for the outlined one? label for the unlabeled one?)

[alinasmahl1]

@ran-codes ah sorry, I think I communicated this confusingly- we just want to add an additional category to the abortion attitude legend (the grey)-- by splitting up the existing accessible section into into "accessible, protected" and "accessible, not protected". So color wise it would go "accessible, protected"- lightest color, "accessible, not protected" next lightest, then hostile, and then illegal.

So I think we shouldn't add an additional field.

[ran-codes]

OOO. Got it !! Thats much easier 😄

Will have something to you today.

[ran-codes]

How does this look?

[usamabilal]

One suggestion: it's a bit hard to differentiate accessible not protected from hostile in the legend, but it's easy in the figure: the color of the state text. (e.g. NM vs AZ). (it's also tricky because there's only three states with accessible not protected, NM, VA, NH, right?) A suggestion would be to include this specifically in the legend, by increasing the size of the rectangle, and including the text inside the rectangle following the same color as in the figure itself. does that make sense?

(just a suggestion, feel free to ignore if you think this makes things too complicated!)

[ran-codes]

A potential alternative state attitude legend

[alinasmahl1]

o yup, love this!! Great suggestion-- I think this makes it much easier to see the distinction

[ran-codes]

@alinasmahl1 see the zipped bundle (output-bundle-issue7.zip) which is a self contained project containing:

• index.R: R script to run to generate output
• the data used

• the jpeg output

  (still experimenting with what type of output is best to give to people using the Analytics Corner - so let me know what format you would like the deliverables in).

[usamabilal]

(still experimenting with what type of output is best to give to people using the Analytics Corner - so let me know what format you would like the deliverables in).

maybe include a radius question in the request form?

• Final output (+ open ended field with format of final output; e.g., jpg, png...)
• Reproducible package (data + code)

[alinasmahl1]

That output is great for me -- thank you again!!! And yup, I like that idea @usamabilal --