Melinda French Gates presents an endorsement of Biden over Trump, highlighting some valid concerns about the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade and the need for better care infrastructure in the United States, which Biden has pledged to address. However, she relies on some loaded language and selective attention to relevant information.

1. misleading vividness • The author uses vivid and emotionally charged language like "turned away pregnant women in desperate need of care" and "obstetricians have fled states" to paint a dramatic picture. However, she does not provide any specific data or evidence to back up these claims.

In the two years since Roe was overturned, emergency rooms have turned away pregnant women in desperate need of care because doctors feared legal consequences. Obstetricians have fled states with strict bans, which could leave women without access to basic services like contraceptives.

The vivid language and hypothetical scenarios make the potential consequences seem more probable and widespread than they may actually be. This type of language can be misleading by exploiting people's tendencies to be more persuaded by vivid anecdotes than by statistical evidence.

2. cherry picking •  By failing to mention that Trump has ruled out a nationwide abortion ban at the federal level and that his previously proposed 15-week limit would have no effect on roughly 95% of abortions, the author is guilty of cherry-picking information. She presents an incomplete and one-sided picture by focusing solely on hypothetical worst-case scenarios like women being "turned away" and obstetricians "fleeing states," without providing the full context of Trump's actual policy positions.

This selective use of vivid examples and omission of key facts that don't align with her narrative is a form of cherry-picking information to make her argument seem more persuasive than it actually is based on the complete information available. It is an example of presenting a partial perspective rather than a fully balanced view.