Pro-Woman Framing in the Pro-Life Movement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fighting for Life: Pro-Woman Framing in the Pro-life Movement Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Alexa J. Trumpy Graduate Program in Sociology The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Andrew Martin, Advisor Vincent Roscigno Liana Sayer Copyrighted by Alexa J. Trumpy 2011 Abstract How do marginal actors change hearts and minds? Social movement scholars have long recognized that institutional outsiders target a range of potential allies to press their agenda. While much of the movement research historically privileged formal political activities in explaining social change, understanding the way actors draw upon culture and identity to garner wider support for a variety of social, political, and economic causes has become increasingly important. Ultimately, research that incorporates political process theories with the seemingly dichotomous notions of cultural and collective identity is especially valuable. To better understand how movement actors achieve broad change, I draw on recent attempts to examine how change occurs in fields. I argue it is necessary to examine how a field’s structural and cultural components, as well as the more individual actions, resources, rhetoric, and ideologies of relevant actors, interact to affect field change or maintain stasis. This research does so through an analysis of the current debate over abortion in America, arguably the most viciously divisive religious, moral, political, and legal issue since slavery. Over the past four decades, the American abortion debate has been glibly characterized as fight between the rights of two groups: women and fetuses, with pro-choice groups championing the rights of the former and pro-life groups the latter. Yet recently, a growing contingent of the pro-life movement is attempting to alter this dichotomy by using pro-woman rhetoric to argue that instead of advancing women’s equality, abortion is actually harmful to women. I use a combination of focus groups, individual interviews, participant observation, and content analysis to ii explain why a faction of the pro-life movement is attempting to alter the debate’s field frame by replacing the fetal rights focus with an emphasis on how abortion is harmful to women. Ultimately, this faction believes changing the field frame will persuade more actors to become pro-life. They believe that this, in turn, will lead to decreased abortion rates, higher percentages of Americans arguing that abortion should be illegal, and more restrictive abortion laws. As a result of these changes, actors in this faction of the pro-life movement believe abortion will eventually become illegal and unthinkable in America. Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of how change in fields is situated in both political and cultural struggles over meanings and resources. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor, Andrew Martin, for all of his wonderful advice, insight and editing. I would also like to thank Liana Sayer and Vinnie Roscigno for their time helpful comments. Finally, I am extremely grateful to Jamie Lynch, Karen and Rob Trumpy, and everyone else who has helped and encouraged me through this process. iv Vita June 2004 …………………………………… DePauw University June 2006 ……………………………………. M.A. Sociology, The Ohio State University Publications Trumpy, Alexa J. 2009. “Subject to Negotiation: The Mechanisms Behind Cooptation And Corporate Reform.” Social Problems 55: 480-500 Trumpy, Alexa J. 2011. “Historical Development of Early Preservationist Organizations” in Encyclopedia of American Reform Movements, edited by Jack McKivigan and Heather Kaufman. Indianapolis: Facts on File. Trumpy, Alexa J. 2011. “The Founding of the National Park System” in Encyclopedia of American Reform Movements, edited by Jack McKivigan and Heather Kaufman. Indianapolis: Facts on File. Trumpy. Alexa J. 2011. “Corporate Green Culture” in Green Culture, edited by Paul Robbins, Kevin Wehr, and J. Geoffrey Golson. Sage Green Series. Trumpy. Alexa J. 2011. “Locavores” in Green Culture, edited by Paul Robbins, Kevin Wehr, and J. Geoffrey Golson. Sage Green Series. Fields of Study Major Field: Sociology v Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………..... ii Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………………... iv Vita …………………………………………………………………………………......... v Chapter 1: Introduction and Theoretical Framework ……………………………………. 1 Chapter 2: Data and Methods ………………………………………………………….. 24 Chapter 3: The Abortion Debate Field Frame and PWPL Actors Want to Change It … 34 Chapter 4: Gender and Feminist Frames ………………………………………………. 60 Chapter 5: Institutional Frames ……………………………………………………….. 90 Chapter 6: Health Frames ……………………………………………………………. 112 Chapter 7: Conclusion ………………………………………………………………... 148 References ……………………………………………………………………………. 154 vi Chapter One: Introduction and Theoretical Framework INTRODUCTION Everyone approaching the National Mall in Washington D.C. on the unseasonably warm morning of January 22, 2009 sensed the anticipatory static in the air; something was about to happen. From far away, oblivious tourists sauntering toward the Washington Monument and docents hurrying to begin another day of leading tours at the National Gallery may have deduced a demonstration was taking shape. If they remembered the day’s date, congressional scholars, law students, and historians could easily make an educated guess. It was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and a sea of pro-life activists, along with a motley straggle of pro-choice protesters, were gearing up for the annual March for Life. Docent, tourist, or historian, anyone marginally familiar with the American pro- life movement may also feel confident in predicting the types of signs pro-life activists would carry – poster boards with graphic, full color images of curled fetuses and slogans like “Abortion=Murder” or “It’s A Child, Not a Choice.” While all of these signs were present, they were dwarfed by the popularity of another presence: sturdy black, white, and yellow glossy pieces of cardboard, about 3 feet wide and 3 feet tall, each one boldly proclaiming “Women Regret Abortion.” That these signs accounted for about one third of all the signs brought to the march that day may surprise many. After all, most people believe the American pro-life movement typically addresses fetal rights far more than it 1 ever mentions the feelings of women who undergo abortion. Yet members of the Silent No More Awareness campaign, who made the signs and thrust them into any available hand willing to grab hold, are affiliated with a faction of the pro-life movement referred to as pro-woman, pro-life (PWPL). PWPL actors want to change both the focus of the pro-life movement and Americans’ understanding of the abortion debate. Since the 1973 Supreme Court Decision Roe v. Wade, the American abortion debate has been most frequently characterized as fight between the rights of two groups: women and fetuses, with pro- choice groups championing the rights of the former and pro-life groups the latter. Of course, this understanding of abortion is not ahistorical; many scholars have demonstrated how the general understanding of abortion changed over the last two centuries, from physician control to a struggle over competing rights (Luker 1984; Mohr 1979; Sollinger 2007). Yet recently, the PWPL contingent of the pro-life movement has emerged and is attempting to alter this established woman vs. fetal rights dichotomy by using gendered rhetoric to argue that instead of advancing women’s equality, abortion is actually harmful to women. This knowledge may provoke many questions: why are actors associated with one of the largest, most recognizable, and most active countermovements in recent history trying to change the focus of both the pro-life movement and the broader understanding of the American abortion debate? How do PWPL actors go about realizing this change? How do more traditional fetal-centric pro-lifers respond to these attempts? More generally, how can activists be convinced to abandon arguments based on ideological 2 purity in favor of more strategic ways to present an issue? And what impact will this new pro-woman, pro-life rhetoric have on the American abortion debate? To begin addressing these questions, I first turn to the literature on framing and ideology, and the frame alignment processes of extension and transformation. I argue that PWPL actors are attempting to extend traditional pro-life ideology by combining the ideologies of fetal personhood and gender essentialism. PWPL actors also advocate for strategic frame transformation within the pro-life movement. They believe that arguments emphasizing how abortion is harmful to women will be more successful than fetal centric frames in winning new pro-life converts and challenging abortion’s legality. Faced with the limited political and cultural effectiveness of a movement frame focusing on fetal rights, the PWPL wing of the pro-life movement seeks to redefine the terms of the debate from “woman vs. fetus” to a dispute over which position best represents the rights, health, and interests of women – pro-life or pro-choice. The PWPL movement seeks to cast doubt on the notion – heretofore shared by actors on both sides – that the pro-choice movement is focused on the interests of women and the pro-life movement is concerned with the rights of fetuses. It seeks to show that the pro-life position is more authentically