Love Them Both?

Pro-Woman, Pro-Life: New Policy Frames in the Anti-Abortion Movement

Ebba Wallin Eriksson

Supervisor: Josefina Erikson

Bachelor Thesis, Political Science

Department of Government

Uppsala University, Spring 2020

Word count: 11281

Page count: 42

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 3 1.1. Aim and Research Questions 4 1.2. Disposition 5 1.3. Definitions 5

2. Theoretical Framework 6 2.1. The American Anti-abortion Movement: Before and After Roe v. Wade 6 2.2. Emergence of the Pro-Woman, Pro-Life Faction 7 2.3. Frame Analysis and Frame Alignment Processes 8 2.4. Frame Extension and Frame Transformation in the Pro-Life Movement 10

3. Research Design 11 3.1. Empirical Research of Frames 12 3.2. Choice of Method and Analytical Framework 14 3.3. Material and Context 15 3.4. Sample 17

4. Findings and Discussion 18 4.1. Findings 18 4.1.1 The Fetal Rights Frame 18 4.1.2 The Pro-Death Frame 21 4.1.3. The Selfish Mother Frame 22 4.1.4. The Coercion Frame 24 4.1.5. The Medical Advances Frame 25 4.1.6. The PAS Frame 26 4.2. Discussion 27

5. Conclusion 30

References 32

Appendix 37

2

1. Introduction In 1973, the US Supreme Court established that abortion is a constitutional right with the landmark ruling Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113). The Court recognized fetus viability as the earliest ​ ​ ​ stage of when the state may prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion. Viability, defined as the point of fetal development where the fetus can survive outside the womb, was estimated to occur at the gestational age of 28 weeks. This decision was largely upheld in Planned Parenthood ​ of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 1992), when the Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution indeed protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose abortion.

In spite of these rulings, abortion has remained a divisive and widely debated issue in the United States, and in 2019, eleven states passed bills that impose restrictions on abortion and challenge the Roe ruling. Alabama enacted the harshest bill to date with a complete ban on abortion. Others, like Georgia and Ohio, prohibit the procedure after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is around six weeks into the pregnancy. Along with these fetal heartbeat bills, other states ​ ​ ban the performance at eight and eighteen weeks, respectively. With the 2018 appointment of Brett Kavanaugh rendering a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, bill makers hope to challenge Roe v Wade, creating new precedent on abortion law in the United States (Lai 2019). ​ ​ Alabama Governor Kay Ivey said when signing the bill that “it is time, once again, for the US ​ Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur'' (Reilly 2019).

The main arguments of the self-described pro-life movement for abortion regulations have since ​ ​ ​ ​ the 1973 ruling been centered around the rights of the fetus. The dominant framing has thus been one constructed around fetal life and fetal rights, where the innocent and defenseless fetus’s right to life is opposed by the pregnant woman’s interests in a maternal-fetal conflict (Ferree, Gamson, ​ Gerhards, and Rucht 2002). However, some scholars argue that this framing has shifted, with the ​ ​ emergence of a pro-woman, pro-life, or PWPL faction of the antiabortion movement that instead ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ argues that abortion is bad for women (Rose 2011, Trumpy 2014). These woman-centered actors thus challenge the previously shared notion that pro-choice movements are concerned with

3

protecting women’s rights, whilst the pro-life movement focuses on protecting the fetal right to life. Through these PWPL arguments, the pro-life movement simultaneously attempts to change movement audiences views of them, as well as of pro-choice actors whom they cast as anti-woman (Oaks 2009).

A conservative-leaning majority of the Supreme Court have created new opportunities for the pro-life movement, resulting in mobilization around the 1973 Roe. v. Wade ruling once again. With new pro-woman framing strategies gaining ground, the recent upsurge of abortion restrictions raises questions of how we could understand this trend. This essay will explore closer what frames are utilized in the latest wave of policy, and how the abortion issue is approached by contemporary policy actors.

1.1. Aim and Research Questions The aim of this study is to understand the way the policy issue of abortion is framed in the recent bills. Policies are not only instrumental but expressive– they communicate values and beliefs. In addition to conveying collective identity, policy frames shape our understanding and perception of different matters (Yanow, 2000). The understanding of a specific problem prompts certain suggested courses of action. In other words, the way a policy is framed has direct effects on citizens’ lives. In order to investigate this, a frame analysis of recent policy will be conducted, in which various frames will be identified and discussed. The first research question this thesis will address is then: How is abortion framed in recent U.S. anti-abortion policy? ​

In addition to this overarching inquiry, this essay will investigate the presence and extent of woman-centric arguments, as well as their interplay with traditional pro-life narratives. It will examine arguments surrounding the seemingly contradictory pro-woman, pro-life stance, and the way themes of rights, morality, and science are used to shape pro-life frames. This departure will allow for an exploration of the proposed frame shift, and specifically, its place in policy. This essay will thus explore if pro-woman arguments have gained a foothold in American legislation.

4

The second research question is then: How has pro-woman, pro-life arguments influenced policy ​ frames?

1.2. Disposition The first section of this essay will provide previous research and a brief background of the American anti-abortion movement and the emergence of the pro-woman, pro-life faction. After this, a theoretical framework on social movement theory, specifically on frames and frame alignment will be provided. This will be followed by previous research on frame alignment in the pro-life movement. The third section of this essay will present the scholarly contributions on empirical frame analysis as well as the used research design, including methodology and material. In the fourth section, findings will be presented and discussed. Lastly, this essay will be concluded with final remarks and suggestions for further research on the topic.

1.3. Definitions In this essay, the terms anti-abortion and pro-life will be used interchangeably. Likewise, the terms abortion rights and pro-choice will be used synonymously. These terms will refer exclusively to the abortion movements in the United States. Both pro-life and pro-choice are purposefully politically charged labels, as the use of pro-life implies that opposers are anti-life or pro-death, whilst the term pro-choice implies the existence of an anti-choice movement. These are however the most common self-descriptions in the debate regarding the moral and legal status of abortion– in a poll by Gallup, only 6 % of respondents did not consider themselves pro-choice nor pro-life (2019). The pro-life movement, then, refers in this essay to the informal network of anti-abortion supporters that mobilize to achieve common goals (Tarrow, 1998).

This study is not intended to evaluate the veracity of any medical definitions, scientific evidence or factual claims used in the debate. Instead, what will be investigated is the way in which these are understood and employed. Consequently, no working definitions will be given of the discussed subjects– woman, fetus, mother, and child. Still, it should be noted that both women and others with female-assigned reproductive systems are affected by abortion restrictions.

5

Likewise, many women do not have female-assigned reproductive systems. These dimensions will however be omitted from this report.

2. Theoretical Framework In this segment, a theoretical framework and previous research will be provided. Initially, background and previous research of the pro-life movement will be presented. In the following section, the key concept of frames will be introduced and conceptualized within social movement theory. This will be followed by the specific previous study of frame alignment in the pro-life movement.

2.1. The American Anti-abortion Movement: Before and After Roe v. Wade In the late 1960s, the conflict surrounding abortion grew more and more contentious. With the feminist movement came new demands for the decriminalization of abortion, as a means to achieve equality through sexual freedom and control over one’s reproduction. In the summer of 1972, two out of three Americans believed that abortion should be a decision solely between a woman and her doctor. According to the poll, Republican voters agreed with this statement to a larger extent than Democratic voters, by 68% and 59% respectively (Greenhouse & Siegel 2011 p. 2031).

With a growing support for the decriminalization of abortion, Catholics began to mobilize nationwide in opposition to the abortion rights advocates. Republican political strategists thus began encouraging Richard Nixon to change his stance on abortion, to attract the Catholic voters– traditionally a Democratic demographic (Greenhouse & Siegel 2011 p. 2057). This strategy fits into a larger Republican positioning toward the loss of traditional values. The Republican Party attempted to attract social conservatives by placing themselves in opposition to abortion, drug use, and the anti-war movement (Greenhouse & Siegel 2011 p. 2056). Nixon won the election and gained support from 52% of the country’s Catholics, compared to 33% in his 1968 presidential win (Novak 2012). By the middle of the 1980s, Republican congressmen began systematically voting against abortion (Adams 1997).

6

Because of the central role of the Catholic Church in the anti-abortion movement, and the political use of the abortion issue to attract social conservatives, most pro-life arguments came to revolve around the idea of traditional Christian morality (Rose 2011 p.7). After the 1973 Supreme Court decision, the dominant frame was the fetal rights frame, emphasizing the sanctity of life and the fetus’s right to life, pointing to the existence of a maternal-fetal conflict of interest (Roth 2000, Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht 2002, Daniels 1996). The fetus is within this ​ ​ ​ frame personified and presented as a baby– a citizen with rights:

Portrayed by the fetal rights movement as the tiniest citizen, the fetus is depicted as an independent being with needs, interests and rights separate from and often opposed to the pregnant woman's. [...] The anti-abortion movement cast the fetus as a fully formed baby from the earliest stages of pregnancy and cast abortion as a form of murder. (Daniels 1996 p.3)

Most traditional pro-life arguments, then, are placed under larger concepts of morality and rights. Arguing that the fetus is a human being, and that all human beings have a right to life, makes abortion morally wrong since it ends a human life (Munson 2009).

2.2. Emergence of the Pro-Woman, Pro-Life Faction The first pro-life organization that claims to safeguard the interest of women was formed already in the 1970s, with several additional organizations emerging in the subsequent decades (Trumpy ​ 2014 p.165). Feminists for life, established in 1972, rely on “core feminist values of justice, ​ ​ ​ ​ nondiscrimination, and nonviolence” and seek to prohibit the procedure based on the notion that ​ “women deserve better than abortion” (Feminists for Life). Their slogan pro-woman, pro-life ​ ​ describes the idea that women are benefitted by a recriminalization of abortion (Oaks 2009). This pro-woman, pro-life faction of the antiabortion movement resists abortion because it “condones violence against women and fetuses, causes emotional and physical suffering for women, and contributes to the social devaluation of motherhood” (Oaks 2009 p. 178).

7

Trumpy (2014) presents two frames that the PWPL faction advocates: the coercion frame and the Post Abortion Syndrome frame. The coercion frame, based on gender essentialist ideology, calls for the interpretation of abortion as something women are forced into doing by partners, parents, or social pressure. They make the argument that women, in their very essence, are nurturing and motherly and that they only deflect from their natural instincts because they are pressured into having an abortion (2014). The second, more prominent frame according to Trumpy (2014) is one of the Post Abortion Syndrome. Speckhart and Rue (1992) coined the term Post Abortion Syndrome, PAS, which they conceptualized as a form of posttraumatic stress disorder experienced by women post-abortion. They claimed that having an abortion could lead to symptoms similar to those of war veterans: anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and survivors’ guilt. The existence of the syndrome is widely debated (Dadlez & Andrews 2010, Reardon 2018), and not recognized as a diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association (2002) or the American Psychological Association (2008). The PAS frame, like the Coercion frame, positions women as victims (Trumpy 2014).

Whereas the fetal rights frame is placed under the master frame of morality, the PWPL frames fit into an Enlightenment master frame. According to Melody Rose (2011), the PWPL arguments are grounded in 18th-century enlightenment themes such as rights, reason, and science. She argues that PWPL arguments are based in scientific language, with great emphasis on medical or scientific evidence and findings. In addition to this, PWPL actors utilize second-wave feminist language, asserting that women’s rights issue to have proper information regarding the possible consequences of abortion (p.10).

2.3. Frame Analysis and Frame Alignment Processes The concept frame was coined by Erving Goffman in his 1974 book Frame Analysis and defined ​ ​ ​ ​ as the “schemata of interpretation” (p.21) that renders meaning to otherwise meaningless aspects of life. In other words, it is the culturally specific and socially constructed set of frameworks that helps an individual interpret the world around them. Frames, through their assignment of meaning to occurrences or events, organize experience and guide action– collective and

8

individual (Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford 1986). The production of collective action frames, and the mobilization of meaning, have since the 1980s become a central process in social movement theory (Benford & Snow 2000):

(...) social movements are not viewed merely as carriers of extant ideas and meanings that grow automatically out of structural arrangements, unanticipated events, or existing ideologies. Rather, movement actors are viewed as signifying agents actively engaged in the production and maintenance of meaning for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers. (Benford & Snow 2000 p. 613)

Framing, then, occurs when movement actors actively construct realities, identify injustices and ​ suggest pathways to change, creating collective action frames. The existence of grievances and opportunities must be framed in a way that persuades individuals that collective action is justified, and frames can thus be more or less successful depending on how convincing they are to the public. Because of this, framing is very much a strategic activity (Noakes & Johnston 2005). Collective action frames are then not merely carriers of cultural or ideological notions, but negotiated, dynamic and deliberate constructions.

The strategic efforts to frame issues in a way that helps recruit members, mobilize followers, demobilize antagonizers and gain resources are defined by Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford as frame alignment processes (1986). This occurs when a social movement ​ ​ ​ ​ organization’s interests, ideas, and interpretation frames are linked with actual or prospective supporters of the movement. Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford have identified four such processes: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation. Frame bridging involves linking structurally different frames, and frame amplification refers to the revitalization and clarification of a belief or value (1986). This essay will only focus on the two latter alignment processes, as these are the processes highlighted in PWPL research.

Frame extension can be understood as the effort to “encompass interests or points of view that are incidental to its primary objectives but of considerable salience to potential adherents”, thus

9

“attempting to enlarge its adherent pool by portraying its objectives or activities as attending to or being congruent with the values or interests of potential adherents” (Snow et al. 1986 p. 472). One example of this strategy is the reframing of traditional arguments för religious schooling with a multicultural framing in two Ontario religious associations (Davies 1999). All frames are of course not compatible, and some may even be contradictory. Actors can then instead attempt the fourth alignment process, frame transformation, that set out to change or replace old frames. This is done in an attempt to generate a schemata of interpretation that resonates better with prospective supporters. Pedriana (2006) found this type of alignment in the 1960’s women’s movement, when the frame of protection of women was replaced with the competing equal rights frame.

Some frames are generic and employed by several movements, such as choice frames, rights frames, or injustice frames. These are defined by Snow and his colleagues as master frames. Movement specific frames are instead referred to as organizational frames.

2.4. Frame Extension and Frame Transformation in the Pro-Life Movement Scholars have found that several actors within the pro-life movement are pursuing frame extension or even frame transformation towards the pro-woman, pro-life strategy (Rose 2011, Trumpy 2014). Alexa Trumpy (2014) investigated this through interviews, focus groups, and participant observation of fetal-centric as well as woman-centric groups and organizations. She found that PWPL actors want to emphasize the perceived negative implications that abortion has on women, in order to appeal to the average American who might be personally opposed to abortion but is unwilling to commit to traditional pro-life arguments. By not blaming women, but instead displaying compassion for them, these actors want to convince the more moderate audience that they care for both woman and child, birthing the slogan “love them both” (von Hagel & Mansbach 2016 p. 95).

PWPL actors claim that the current frame has become stagnant and unable to convince possible adherents, and that the pro-life movement must convince those concerned with women’s rights

10

that abortion is not a means to achieve equality but a harmful procedure, with both physical and psychological side effects for women. In other words, the PWPL faction strives to undermine the pro-choice frame by demonstrating how a ban on abortion would actually benefit and protect women, in contrary to the pro-choice argument (Trumpy 2014 p. 171).

According to Trumpy (2014), PWPL actors then want to replace the anti-abortion organizational collective frame of fetal rights with pro-woman frames. Traditional pro-life actors are thus presented with the choice between accepting the transformation, rejecting it, or accepting parts of the new frame through frame extension. Trumpy found in interviews and focus groups that most traditional pro-life actors preferred the last alternative. Many did not want a transformation of the organizational frame, but did accept some of the PWPL frames, and were willing to use the woman-centric approach in certain instances (p. 177).

3. Research Design In the following section, the opportunities and limitations of empirical research of frames will be discussed. This will be followed by a detailed methodology, where the analytical framework for the interpretative analysis will be presented. Finally, sections 3.3. and 3.4. will deal with the policy context and the sample chosen for this study.

This essay will be grounded in previous studies of collective action frames in the American pro-life movement. The study can contribute to the existing field of research in a few different ways. First of all, no frame analysis has been conducted of the 2019 bills. In addition to this, this study will use a hermeneutic approach, and will thus not only attempt to identify arguments of the above-discussed frames– instead, it will inductively examine the bills with the possibility of extracting newly emerging frames. Thirdly, this thesis will investigate the presence, interplay, and impact of the different arguments discussed above. Given that there in fact are movement actors that are pursuing a frame alignment, this essay could then examine if, and how these arguments have gained a foothold in policy.

11

3.1. Empirical Research of Frames Frame analysis can be conducted with both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A use of quantitative methods is deductive and used primarily to achieve generalizable results and to make causal inferences. Quantitative methods rely on already established hypotheses, and are most successful when certain keywords and phrases can be used as a clear indicator of the existence of a certain frame. This methodology is based on the belief that it is possible to extract all frames and narratives present in a document. This approach allows treatment of many units of analysis, but might cause a loss of nuance when identifying frames (Hertog & McLeod, 2001).

The qualitative approach to frame analysis instead aims to describe and analyze different frames. An interpretative analysis that is situated in the context of the phenomenon has the potential to offer a more in-depth understanding. For example, the cultural context of a phrase or implicit references can be overlooked in quantitative studies (Azpiroz, 2014). In addition, words have different bearing– even one use of a very charged word can be significant to the result. A qualitative approach will thus allow for a more dynamic interpretation and deep understanding of a phenomenon.

Matthes and Kohring identify the hermeneutic approach as the most common qualitative method. This approach is defined as the attempt to “identify frames by providing an interpretative account of media texts linking up frames with broader cultural elements” (p. 259). This method commonly relies on small samples that are explained in-depth and the results are most often not quantified. Matthes and Kohring argue that this method may lack in transparency, which in turn can lead to a reliability problem. In addition, they argue that a researcher might only identify the frames that they expect to find, leading to a selection bias that skews the results. If the study was recreated by another researcher, results may vary as the exact way a scholar extracted frames remains somewhat unclear (2008).

The claim that interpretative methods are non-transparent, subjective, or biased is counter-critiqued by Dvora Yanow in her 2000 book Conducting interpretive policy analysis. ​

12

She argues that not only is it not logically or philosophically possible to make a dispassionate, value-free analysis– it is not desirable. The role of the interpretative policy analyst is to gather a situated understanding of an issue, where cultural and contextual knowledge is not only inevitable but a resource when making sense of policy expressions. The analyst then acts at once ​ as a translator and mediator. In this perspective, “the analyst learns to make sense of a situation from different angles and brings that sensemaking to others. The analyst ‘travels’ to other policy-relevant interpretive communities and tells (or enables the telling of) other communities' stories, facilitating their understanding” (p. 91). The written policy analysis will thus in itself contain the analysts interpretative framework, and the results will be framed in a certain way to convince the reader of their trueness. In other words, the subjectivity of the hermeneutic approach is from this outlook not a flaw of the design, but an inherent quality.

Jim Kuypers (2009) builds off of the same idea, claiming that data from an interpretative analysis cannot be objectively verified. A frame analysis does not however merely present facts, but an interpretation of what those facts mean (p.294). This does not mean that an interpretative analysis cannot be more or less convincing. By providing textual evidence, theoretical frameworks, and context, the author can provide logical integrity to the arguments made. Kuypers argues that “with a logical essay, another scholar should be able to look at the same rhetorical text and see exactly how the author made the claims he or she did based on the textual evidence. They do not necessarily have to agree with the claims, or the conclusions, but they should see them as reasonable” (p. 296). In other words, scholars must convince readers of their interpretations, but it is up to readers to accept or dispute them.

According to Azpiroz (2014) there are essentially two variables that are investigated in both qualitative and quantitative studies: framing mechanisms and framing functions. Framing ​ ​ ​ ​ mechanisms are certain keywords, phrases, examples, historic or cultural references that because of context or repetition indicate a certain frame. Framing functions, on the other hand, are the definitions of a policy problem, causal analysis, remedies, and evaluation. Robert Entman

13

defines the four framing functions in his essential 1993 paper Framing: Toward Clarification of ​ ​ a Fractured Paradigm:

Frames, then, define problems– determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and ​ ​ benefits, usually measured in terms of common cultural values; diagnose causes– identify the ​ ​ forces creating the problem; make moral judgments-evaluate causal agents and their effects; and ​ ​ suggest remedies– offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects. ​ (1993 p. 52)

3.2. Choice of Method and Analytical Framework To identify and examine existing frames in the 2019 abortion policy a qualitative frame analysis ​ will be conducted. The method used can be categorized as hermeneutic, as the approach will be an inductive attempt to link frames with cultural concepts. The theoretical framework offers contextual knowledge that will guide the analysis, however, the inductive approach used will allow for findings that might not fit within the frames discussed by previous researchers. Framing mechanisms such as keywords, phrases, and references might indirectly be discovered in the analysis and used to identify a certain frame, but these are not predetermined. One aim of this thesis is, as stated, to investigate the impact of the PWPL arguments on abortion policy. However, no assumptions are made regarding the existence of the frames discussed by Rose and Trumpy (2011, 2014)– instead a close reading might give support to another emerging frame.

Robert Entman’s conceptualization of frames will be used as the analytical framework, and serve as the empirical definition of Goffman’s theoretical definition. The four framing functions are empirically fruitful, as they can be directly used to guide the analysis:

1. Defined problem: what is a casual agent doing, and to what costs and benefits? 2. Diagnosed cause: what force is causing the problem? 3. Moral judgment: how is the problem and cause evaluated? 4. Suggested remedies: what treatments are suggested, and which effects are predicted?

14

To achieve construct validity, the challenge is of course to operationalize a broad concept that is not only used in many disciplines, but in everyday language. Words like framework, frame, and framing are frequently used both in and out of scholarly discourse. While the connotations are similar (Entman 1993), many different definitions are possible. This problem is tackled by using two definitions (theoretical and empirical, respectively) that are widely recognized and frequently used in the field. Hopefully, this will make the findings more comprehensible and the definitions more in par with the reader’s intuition. As for how well Entman’s definition corresponds with the theoretical definition, it can be argued that the four framing functions do not encompass all aspects of a frame. However, Entman’s empirical definition works well together with the notion of collective action frames, where grievances and opportunities, or problems and remedies, must be framed in a convincing way.

Limitations of this method include those discussed in section 3.1. A qualitative frame analysis might infer transparency problems, as a subjective interpretation is an innate attribute of frame analysis. To combat this, a comprehensive matrix of the findings will be included in the ​ appendix. By providing clear textual support of statements as well as detailed interpretations, the findings will become more transparent, in turn enabling a retracing of the study.

3.3. Material and Context To investigate which frames are present in the latest wave of abortion policy, three abortion bills will be analyzed. To motivate the selection, context and background information will be provided in the following section. All bills cited are in the format in which they were passed by the house or senate and range from 5-30 pages.

In 2019, eleven states enacted new laws that in some way restrict or regulate abortions. The restrictions are based on gestational age, fetal heartbeat detection, fetal characteristics, or abortion method. The bills that prohibit abortion based on gestational age or the detection of a fetal heartbeat thus ban all kinds of abortions after a given time. Arkansas (AR HB1439, 2019) and Utah (UT HB0136, 2019) have forbidden the procedure after week 18, whilst Missouri (MO

15

HB126, 2019) has imposed a ban after week eight. Five states, Georgia (GA HB481, 2019), ​ Kentucky (KY SB9, 2019), Louisiana (LA SB184, 2019), Mississippi (MS SB2116, 2019), and Ohio (OH SB23, 2019-2020) have enacted so-called fetal heartbeat bills, that forbid the procedure once a fetal heartbeat can be detected. This usually occurs around six or eight weeks into the pregnancy. Medical professionals are then required to check for a heartbeat before performing the abortion. The most strict regulation can be found in the Alabama bill (AL HB314, 2019) where abortion is completely banned, at any stage of fetal development. The only exception is when there is a serious health risk for the pregnant woman.

In addition to the restrictions based on gestational age and fetal heartbeat detection, Arkansas (AR SB2 2019), Kentucky (KY HB5, 2019) Missouri (MO HB126, 2019), and Utah (UT HB 0166, 2019) have also imposed regulations based on certain fetal characteristics. Specifically, they prohibit the procedure when the pregnant woman seeks abortion services because of a diagnosis that the fetus might have Down syndrome. The Kentucky and Missouri bills also enact a categorical regulation that prohibits the procedure when done because of the fetus’s sex or race.

Finally, two states have introduced regulations of the abortion method. Indiana (IN HB1211 2019) and North Dakota (ND HB1546) both prohibit dismemberment abortion, defined as ​ ​ “intentionally dismembering a living unborn child and extracting the unborn child one piece at a time from a uterus, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child”.

Table 1. Type of 2019 Abortion Regulation

Complete ban Fetal Week 8 Week 18 Specified Abortion heartbeat characteristics method

Alabama (AL) Georgia (GA), Missouri Utah (UT), Arkansas (AR), Indiana (IN) Kentucky (MO) Arkansas (AR) Kentucky North (KY), (KY), Missouri Carolina (NC) Louisiana (MO), Utah (LA), (UT) Mississippi (MS), Ohio (OH)

16

3.4. Sample To answer the formulated questions of this thesis, a frame analysis will be conducted of three bills: the Alabama bill, the Kentucky bill, and the Missouri bill. There were several reasons for the choice of these specific bills. First off, because of the limited scope of this thesis, a thorough hermeneutic framing analysis of all bills would not be empirically viable as this would take a considerable amount of time. The advantage of investigating the whole population would of course be that one could with certainty make claims regarding the whole population, consisting of all 2019 abortion regulation bills.

To combat this problematique, three bills are chosen based on the specified legal regulations. As discussed in section 2.1., framing is a strategic activity, where actors attempt to resonate with possible supporters. Frame transformation and frame extension, specifically, include changing or broadening the framing of an issue to attract new adherents. As this essay sets out to answer which framing is used in the 2019 abortion bills, and to investigate whether a frame alignment has occurred, the three selected bills are interesting for the following reasons.

The three bills selected are amongst the most restrictive ones. Besides from Alabama, with an outright prohibition of abortion, only two states combined a 6-8 week restriction and a specified characteristics regulation: Kentucky and Missouri, who prohibit the procedure when based on race, sex, or a diagnosis of Down syndrome. If the purpose of a frame alignment is to appeal to new adherents, the adherents, in this case, are moderates and those undecided in the abortion issue. It would seem, then, that these are persuaded by more moderate policy suggestions. In order for the stricter regulations to appeal to moderates, the framing of an issue is perhaps particularly paramount. This could of course have resulted in a specific framing in the strictest bills that do not apply to all 2019 abortion legislation. If this is the case, however, that particular set of frames is still arguably the most interesting to investigate, as the strictest bills make the largest intervention into women’s bodily autonomy. It is then of great relevance for citizens affected by these bills that the used strategies are uncovered.

17

The findings of the analysis will not necessarily be generalizable to the whole population of 15 bills. However, emphasis with this type of hermeneutic approach is not placed on external validity. Instead, focus lies with exteriorizing the framing used, and to describe in detail the prevalent themes. While the presence of a frame cannot be generalized within the population, the frames themselves can not only be applied to the 2019 policy, but other abortion discourses. This essay can thus contribute to a broader theoretical understanding.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1. Findings A total of six frames were identified: the fetal rights frame, the pro-death frame, the selfish mother frame, the coercion frame, the medical advances frame, and the PAS frame. The most dominant frame seems to be the fetal rights frame, which is prominent in all bills and permeates most key arguments. Aside from this, the frames are combined in a few different ways. The Alabama bill features all frames except for the PAS frame, while Alabama is the only that includes the pro-death frame. In Missouri’s bill, all frames except the pro-death frame were identified, while the Kentucky bill also did not include the selfish mother frame. In the following sections, the findings of the frame analysis will be presented in detail and discussed based on the formulated problem, cause, moral judgment, and remedies. The exact placement of textual evidence can be found in the appendix, where a comprehensive matrix presents the six frames and their respective framing functions.

4.1.1 The Fetal Rights Frame The fetal rights frame was identified in all three bills, as hinted in two of the act titles: “Human Life Protection Act” (AL HB314, 2019) and “Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act” (MO ​ HB126 2019). This frame presents the unborn fetus as “the tiniest citizen” (Daniels, 1996), a ​ human being with rights, needs, and wants already at conception. Here, a clear set of framing mechanisms was found. When describing a fetus, words like babies or baby (AL HB314, 2019, ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ p. 3-4), unborn children or unborn child, as well as unborn human individual (KY SB9, 2019 p. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

18

5) are frequently used in the bills. This establishment of the fetus as a person is a prerequisite for ​ ​ the argument that the fetus, like all other beings, have certain indisputable rights. In the Missouri bill (MO HB126, 2019) it is stated that “the life of each human being begins at conception and ​ that unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being” (p. 6-7). Because “Almighty God is the author of life, that all men all men and women are ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life’” (p. 4), and fetuses are human beings, they are endowed with these rights.

Within the fetal rights frame, the problem with abortion is thus formulated as a violation of human rights. Alabama bill makers bring this argument to a head, comparing abortion to crimes against humanity:

It is estimated that 6,000,000 Jewish people were murdered in German concentration camps during World War II; 3,000,000 people were executed by Joseph Stalin's regime in Soviet gulags; 2,500,000 people were murdered during the Chinese "Great Leap Forward" in 1958; 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 people were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970s; and approximately 1,000,000 people were murdered during the Rwandan genocide in 1994. All of these are widely acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity. By comparison, more than 50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973, more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin's gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined. (AL HB314, 2019 p. ​ ​ 3-4)

It is stated that all of the examples above are acknowledged to have been crimes against humanity, implying that abortion should fall under the same categorization. It is argued that 50 million “babies” have been aborted since 1973– and that this number is higher than the death toll of the other atrocities combined. Through this analogy, abortion is portrayed as not only a crime ​ ​ against humanity, but the deadliest one.

19

A similar argument is used by Missouri bill makers, who claim that the dilation and evacuation abortion method would be illegal treatment of a convicted criminal, as well as an animal. They thus argue that the state should “prohibit the brutal and painful D & E abortion method at fourteen weeks gestational age or later (...), because if a comparable method of killing was used on: (a) A person convicted of murder in the first degree, it would be cruel and unusual punishment; or (b) An animal, it would be unlawful” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 11). Here, D & E is ​ ​ framed as a procedure that is not legal to perform even on a murderer or an animal, and yet it is performed on innocent “unborn children”. They thus frame abortion as something we would consider illegal if performed on any other human being or living thing, pointing at the need for “safeguarding an unborn child from the serious harm of pain by an abortion method that would cause the unborn child to experience pain while she or he is being killed” (MO HB126, 2019 p. ​ ​ 13). Here, the use of the word kill to describe the procedure further enhances the narrative that ​ ​ abortion is an act of ending a child’s life, rather than a termination of the woman’s pregnancy. It simultaneously establishes fetal personhood– as only living beings can be killed– and emphasize the wrongfulness of abortion, appealing to the cultural connotation of the word kill.

By comparing the procedure to genocide and “cruel and unusual punishment”, abortion is established as a violation of rights. The fetal rights frame is hence placed within a larger rights ​ master frame, where fetal rights are juxtaposed with the rights of minority groups and other oppressed peoples. Simultaneously, the anti-abortion movement is put on a par with rights activists: “The self-evident truth found in natural law, that all human beings are equal from creation, was at least one of the bases for the anti-slavery movement, the women's suffrage movement, the Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the American civil rights movement” (AL ​ HB314, 2019 p. 2). The placement of the fetal rights frame under the rights master frame thus allows the same understanding of abortion as of rights violations by attaching to the same schemata of interpretation.

The framed violation of fetal rights is within the frame also evaluated to have negative implications on the overall rights of vulnerable members of society. Abortion of a fetus with a

20

known diagnosis of Down syndrome is forbidden as “[e]liminating unborn children with Down ​ Syndrome raises grave concerns for the lives of those who do live with disabilities” (MO HB126, ​ 2019 p. 24). The same argument is made for abortion based on the sex of the fetus: “Performing ​ or inducing an abortion because of the sex of the unborn child is repugnant to the values of equality of females and males and the same opportunities for girls and boys, and furthers a false mindset of female inferiority” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 24). It is thus argued that abortion based on ​ ​ sex or fetal characteristics would undermine the rights of women or citizens with disabilities, whilst abortion regulations “[b]enefits (...) [s]ociety, by fostering respect for human life, born ​ and unborn, at all stages of development, and by lessening societal tolerance of violence against innocent human life” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 12). ​ ​

The solution of the problem– violation of fetal rights– is derived from other rights movements: “If those movements had not been able to appeal to the truth of universal human equality, they could not have been successful.” (AL HB314, 2019 p. 2). The remedy is then to “recognize and ​ ​ support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children” (AL HB314, 2019 p.1). ​ ​

4.1.2 The Pro-Death Frame This frame was partly derived from the concept of the maternal-fetal conflict and was found only in Alabama's bill (AL HB314, 2019). Themes in this framing is based upon the notion that ​ women’s rights oppose fetal rights, stating that “[a]bortion advocates speak to women's rights, ​ but they ignore the unborn child” (p. 2). With this wording, abortion rights advocates are presented as antagonists of the fetus and the pro-life movement– implying that they are instead pro-death. This frame is dependent on fetal personification, with the necessary assumption that fetuses have interests separate from women. In this specific frame, however, focus lies with abortion advocates and the legal status of abortion, depicted as the force behind the problem of abortion. The Roe v. Wade decision is understood to be the cause of all abortions: “50 million babies have been aborted in the United States since the Roe decision in 1973” (p. 3). It is implied that the 50 million abortions are a direct result of the decision.

21

The evaluation of this cause is in the Alabama bill quite clear. Bill makers undermine the abortion advocates, describing legal abortion as “so called abortion rights” (p. 4). By phrasing it in this way, they suggest that abortion is in fact not a right, instead lending the moral high ground to the rights of the fetus (see 4.1.1). In addition to this questioning of abortion rights, the Roe decision is challenged. On page 4, it is stated that “Roe v. Wade attempted to define when abortion of an unborn child would be legal”. The phrasing infers that the Supreme Court attempted, but failed, to determine when an abortion was legal under the constitution. The argument continues, declaring that “[j]udges and legal scholars have disagreed and dissented with its finding” (p. 4). It is thus proclaimed that the 1973 decision, that led to the abortion of 50 million babies, is in no respect agreed upon by experts. Instead, abortion “rights” advocates promoted a policy that ignored the unborn child, resulting in the wrongful definition of the legality of abortion. The suggested remedy is within this frame to remove the right to abortion: “The amendment made it clear that the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 does not include a right to an abortion” (p. 1).

4.1.3. The Selfish Mother Frame The Selfish Mother frame, like the coercion frame, frames women primarily as mothers. The problem with abortion is thus defined as mothers failing to be motherly– denying their child life. This frame thus relates to the concept of the maternal-fetal conflict. Because of this, the framing mechanism mother was identified as a signifier of this frame. By presenting the pregnant woman ​ ​ as a mother from the moment of conception, the relationship between the fetus and pregnant woman is established as the one between mother and child. When the woman is framed as the “unborn child's mother” (AL HB314, 2019, p. 1), her fate is already sealed: she will either be a ​ ​ mother of a living child or a mother who ended her child's life.

Within this frame, the rights of the fetus are indeed central but the focus lies rather with a mother's responsibilities towards their child. Abortion is defined in the Missouri bill as the:

(...) act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother's womb; or

22

(b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead [or dying] unborn child” (MO HB126, ​ 2019 p. 5) ​

As motherhood has a cultural connotation of sacrifice and selflessness, the emphasis on mother ​ and child transmits the idea that women owe it to the fetus to put the fetuses interests above their ​ ​ own. For example, the Alabama prohibition does not make exceptions based on the claim that the pregnant woman is suicidal: “This term does not include a condition based on a claim that the woman is suffering from an emotional condition or a mental illness which will cause her to engage in conduct that intends to result in her death or the death of her unborn child” (AL ​ HB314, 2019, p. 5). The implication of this is that the woman should, in spite of any and all ​ emotional distress, carry out the full term of the pregnancy. No matter the circumstances or sacrifices of the woman, bill makers are “[e]ncouraging childbirth over abortion” (MO HB126, ​ 2019 p. 13) ​

Abortion regulations are according to Missouri bill makers put in place to ensure that “unborn ​ ​ human beings are not arbitrarily deprived of life” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 13). This portrays ​ ​ abortion as something that is done casually or at random– in result portraying the women who have them as nonchalant, frivol, or irresponsible. To counter this, several remedies are suggested. These include handing out mandatory printed materials, all of which “shall prominently display the following statement: ‘The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.’” and “include information on the ​ ​ possibility of an abortion causing pain in the unborn child” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 15). These ​ ​ statements reinforce the notion of fetal personhood and are understood to help the woman make an informed, instead of arbitrary, decision. Furthermore, the pregnant woman should be given the opportunity to “view at least seventy-two hours prior to the abortion an active ultrasound of the unborn child and hear the heartbeat of the unborn child if the heartbeat is audible” (MO ​ HB126, 2019 p. 15). Finally, health care professionals are to “[e]xplain the Missouri alternatives ​ to abortion services program” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 17). ​ ​

23

4.1.4. The Coercion Frame The fourth frame found in the three legislations is the Coercion frame. This frame, as identified by Trumpy (2014), is based on the gender essentialist assumption that women are in their very ​ nature motherly. Unlike the framing of the selfish mother, women are in the coercion frame understood as victims that are coaxed into having an abortion, either by a partner, relative or parent, or by the abortion system, and must be protected from becoming a “victim of coerced ​ abortion” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 12). Here, the framing mechanism mother is also a signifier. The ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ pregnant woman is described as the “unborn child's mother” (AL HB314, 2019, p. 1), and thus, ​ ​ ​ ​ what is understood in this frame as the natural role of women is further established.

Neither of the three bills holds the woman who has an abortion criminally liable– instead, the physician performing the procedure is the one subject to a civil or criminal penalty. This reinforces the positioning of pregnant women as victims. Women are presented as passive actors in the procedure: “No woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed shall be criminally or civilly liable.” (AL HB314, 2019, p. 7). As abortion is something that is ​ ​ performed upon a woman, medical workers hold responsibility for the act. In the Kentucky bill, it is stated that “[a] woman on whom an abortion was performed or induced in violation of subsection (1) of Section 5 of this Act or subsection (1) of Section 6 of this Act may file a civil action for the wrongful death of her unborn child” (KY SB9, 2019 p. 8), framing diversion from ​ ​ the regulations as causing a wrongful death of a mothers’ child.

The theme of medical professionals wrongfully aborting a woman's unborn child is in Missouri's bill embedded in historic discrimination of poor and minority populations:

The historical relationship of bias or discrimination by some family planning programs and policies towards poor and minority populations, including, but not limited to, the nonconsensual sterilization of mentally ill, poor, minority, and immigrant women and other coercive family planning programs and policies, must be rejected; (4) Among Missouri residents, the rate of black or African-American women who undergo abortions is significantly higher, about three and a half times higher, than the rate of white women who undergo abortions. Among Missouri residents,

24

the rate of black or African-American women who undergo repeat abortions is significantly higher, about one and a half times higher, than the rate of white women who undergo repeat abortions. (MO HB126, 2019 p. 24) ​ ​

Abortion is thus framed as an act of oppression, implying that these minority groups are in need of legislation to protect them from the biased abortion industry or family planning programs.

The suggested remedy of the coercive abortion problem is then to protect women through abortion restrictions, consequently prohibiting coercive forces from influencing or undermining a woman’s decision. In addition, the importance of consent is stressed, for example in this section:

No physician shall perform or induce an abortion unless and until the physician has obtained from the woman her voluntary and informed consent given freely and without coercion. If the physician has reason to believe that the woman is being coerced into having an abortion, the physician or qualified professional shall inform the woman that services are available for her. (MO HB126, 2019 p. 19) ​ ​

4.1.5. The Medical Advances Frame The medical advances frame was identified as the use of medical language, as well as a scientific framing of abortion restrictions. The problem is within this frame defined as a lack of scientific support in Roe v. Wade and other precedents when they attempted to define the legality of abortion (AL HB314, 2019, p. 4). The 1973 decision and “the ambiguous concept of viability ​ ​ that has been adopted by the Supreme Court” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 8) is questioned, framing ​ ​ viability as an unclear medical indicator. This is explained by alleged gaps in knowledge on abortion that has since been filled by recent medical advances (AL HB314, 2019, p. 4): “Since ​ ​ 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life and the effects of abortion on women” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 6). ​ ​

These advances are claimed to have shifted the medical view on fetuses and medical indicators of life. This is illustrated in the Missouri bill: “Today, however, physicians' and scientists'

25

interests on life in the womb also focus on other markers of development in the unborn child, including, but not limited to, presence of a heartbeat, brain development, a viable pregnancy or viable intrauterine pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy, and the ability to experience pain” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 8). These “advances in medical technology and ​ ​ diagnoses'' (MO HB126, 2019 p. 8), then, have changed the view of the fetus, and “medical ​ ​ science has increasingly recognized the humanity of the unborn child” (AL HB314, 2019, p. 2). ​ ​ In this frame, abortion is hence understood to contradict contemporary medical research (KY ​ SB9, 2019 p. 2). Fetal rights claims are within this frame motivated by scientific findings, noting ​ that “[m]edically, human life is a continuum from conception to death” (MO HB126, 2019 p.7). ​ ​

The suggested remedies in the Medical Advances frame all revolve around adapting abortion regulations to the new medical findings. The most prominent strategy seems to be a suggested shift from viability as an indicator of life to cardiac activity: “Fetal heartbeat (...) has become a key medical predictor that an unborn human individual will reach live birth” (KY SB9, 2019 p. ​ ​ 2). This is thought to combat the ambiguity of viability, arguing that “Cardiac activity begins at a biologically identifiable moment in time” (KY SB9, 2019 p. 2) and that “[t]he heartbeat is a ​ ​ discernible sign of life at every stage of human existence” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 7). ​ ​

4.1.6. The PAS Frame The final identified frame is the PAS, or Post Abortion Syndrome frame. This framing promotes the interpretation of abortion as harmful to women. Unlike the Coercion frame, where women are represented as naturally maternal, the PAS frame relies on medical and rights claims. Within this frame, the cost of abortion is defined as negative effects on women, and abortion regulations are put in place as the state is interested in “protecting the health of the woman” (KY SB9, 2019 ​ p. 3). Missouri legislators motivate their eight-week regulation by referring to health risks associated with late-term abortion, declaring that “[a]bortion procedures performed later in pregnancy have a higher medical risk for women” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 11). ​ ​

26

Along with this, it is argued that advances in medical and scientific technology has disclosed even more potential side effects of abortion: “In addition to the short-term risks of an abortion, studies have found that the long-term physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women include, but are not limited to, an increased risk of preterm birth, low birthweight babies, and placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies, as well as serious behavioral health issues” (MO ​ HB126, 2019 p. 6). Women are thus subject to “possible adverse psychological effects associated ​ with the abortion” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 14). The harm to women because of abortion is within ​ ​ this frame not limited to personal costs, but are instead understood to have a grave impact on society as a whole, declaring that “[t]hese consequences of an abortion have a detrimental effect not only on women, their children, and their families, but also on an already burdened health care system, taxpayers, and the workforce” (MO HB126, 2019 p. 12). ​ ​

Within this frame, women have a right to know of the physical and mental health risks that are associated with abortion, as well as a right to be informed on fetal development– a right that they are being denied. Pregnant women are thus victims of the abortion industry, as vital information, needed to make an informed decision, is being withheld. Kentucky legislators make the argument that “[i]n order to make an informed choice about whether to continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a legitimate interest in knowing the likelihood of the fetus surviving to full-term birth based upon the presence of cardiac activity” (KY SB9, 2019 p. 3). The suggested ​ ​ remedy is then to provide information about fetal development (MO HB126, 2019 p. 17) and to ​ ​ show the fetal heartbeat (KY SB9, 2019 p. 2). ​ ​

4.2. Discussion In the three bills, different frames were identified to varying degrees. The most prominent seemed to be the fetal rights frame that was found in all legislation. This framing permeated the language and rhetoric, with emphasis on fetal personhood and rights claims. Rose (2011) states that the fetal rights frame is placed within a master frame of morality– something that was in part supported by this analysis. For example, the Missouri bill referenced religion in support of their rights claims (MO HB126, 2019 p.4). However, more notable was the enlightenment themes– ​ ​

27

rights, reason, science– that were displayed within the frame. The concept of fetal rights was compared and even intertwined with the rights of other groups. For example, when comparing abortion to genocide (AL HB314, 2019), aborted fetuses are framed as a systematically ​ ​ oppressed group. In addition to this, the protection of fetal rights is presented to have a direct impact on the rights of other groups, with abortion based on sex said to reinforce the inferiority of women, for example (MO HB126, 2019 p. 24). ​ ​

Four of the identified frames are, at least in part, placed under the master frame of enlightenment. The medical advances frame, found in all legislation, is in several respects interlaced with the fetal rights frame, motivating the protection of the fetus based on new scientific indicators. The PAS framing uses a scientific approach to describe the alleged psychological and physical side effects of abortion, as well as rights themes in which women are understood to be denied the right to know the truth about abortion. This frame was found primarily in the Kentucky and Missouri bill. Finally, the coercion frame, identified in all three bills, is built upon the gender essentialist idea within feminist theory. The attribution of a feminine essence including maternal and nurturing qualities, women are framed to be forced into having an abortion. This frame, too, defines the problem as a rights breach– that women are denied the right to motherhood. In the Missouri bill, abortion was also framed as something used to oppress vulnerable or minority groups, drawing parallels to forced sterilization. In addition to this, the bill stressed the fact that the rate of African-american or black women that undergo abortion is significantly higher than the rate of white women that have the procedure.

The pro-death frame and selfish mother frame might instead be categorized under the morality master frame, applying to the notion that abortion is morally wrong. “So called abortion rights” (AL HB314, 2019 p. 4) are understood to have caused the wrongful deaths of millions of babies, ​ as well as mothers who arbitrarily abort their unborn children. The pro-death frame was only identified in the Alabama bill, whereas the selfish mother frame was also identified in the Missouri bill.

28

There seems that there are different sets of frames in each bill. All bills primarily frame fetal rights as the issue at hand, with pervading scientific language and arguments. The Alabama bill appears to apply to morality to a higher extent, being the only bill to utilize the pro-death frame and the selfish mother frame. However, this bill also features the coercion frame– argued by Trumpy (2014) to be part of the Pro-woman Pro-life rhetoric. The Missouri bill features all except the pro-death frame, however, a great emphasis is placed with PWPL arguments, as well as medical language and rights parallels. The pro-death and selfish mother frames were not identified in the Kentucky bill, where the medical advances frame, PAS frame, and coercion frame were the most prominent.

These variations might point to the fact that some frames work better together than others, and disparately, that some are not compatible. For example, Alabama was the only bill to include the pro-death frame, and the only one to not include the PAS frame. Alabama policymakers frame legal abortion as a “so called” right, thus implying that they find the term inappropriate. It would then be contradictory, perhaps, to speak about women’s right to have an informed choice regarding abortion, as in the PAS frame. Their utilization of PWPL arguments instead revolves around the notion that a woman is a mother. The coercion frame is perhaps more compatible with traditional pro-life arguments, seeing as it is based on traditional assumptions of motherhood. On the contrary, Kentucky legislation mainly emphasizes the PAS frame and the medical advances frame. These seem particularly harmonized, as both stem from scientific claims and articulate the need to listen to new medical knowledge.

This result supports the hypothesis that the frame extension as proposed by Rose (2011) also has impacted public policy. All three bills contain enlightenment themes with at least some PWPL framing. Whilst the Alabama legislation remains focused on some moral claims, it seems that the Kentucky and Missouri bill instead have shifted more to arguments focusing on women’s rights and interests. The accentuation of abortion as a race issue as seen in Missouri’s bill is one interesting example of what can be seen as a strategic frame alignment. This framing can be thought to attract new adherents from conventionally progressive anti-racist movements.

29

The most prominent frame is still a fetal rights frame, however, it seems that the framing of this has become centered around scientific claims, as well as the bridging to the rights claims of other people where abortion is thought to increase disregard for other vulnerable groups in society. The maternal-fetal conflict was still present in the problem formulation, however, abortion was understood to be bad for both mother and child. In other words, abortion regulations were framed ​ ​ to be in the best interest of both the pregnant woman and the fetus. It seems, then, that certain aspects of the fetal rights frame remain the same, while some framing functions have shifted. Religious and moral problem definitions seem to largely have been replaced by medical and rights claims.

This speaks for the fact that legislators have not embraced an entirely new framing strategy, and thus a complete frame transformation does not seem to have occurred. Rather, many of the same key concepts are used and intertwined with PWPL and enlightenment framing.

5. Conclusion The purpose of this essay was to understand how abortion is framed in recent policy regulating the procedure, and to gain a deeper understanding of how both woman-centered and fetus-centered frames are employed. The findings were not unanimous– instead, the interpretative analysis revealed diverse understandings of problems, causes, evaluations, and remedies in the three bills. Still, several trends were identified. The fetal rights frame was overall the most prominent, however, it was consistently intertwined with medical claims, as well as placed under a larger rights frame. It was seldomly motivated with moral claims. While the Alabama bill still leaned on morality frames, all three bills featured pronounced PWPL arguments and enlightenment themes. It seems then, that there have both been an emergence of new frames, as well as alterations of the traditional ones in these bills.

This result supports previous research of anti-abortion frames, with the identification of both traditional pro-life frames and PWPL and enlightenment frames. It appears as if the frame

30

extension has indeed influenced policy, and perhaps this indicates an ongoing shift toward woman-centric arguments in policy-- something to be further explored in future legislation.

The results of this frame analysis cannot necessarily be generalized to all recent abortion policy. It would thus be rewarding to analyze all 15 bills from 2019, perhaps especially since there were differences between the three legislations. Frame alignment in abortion policy frames could well be further investigated through a comparison through time. This type of design would allow for more specific reflections on frame alignment within policy. For example, the shift toward medicalized language and scientific frames that are identified by Rose (2011) and Trumpy (2014) could be particularly prevalent in legislation, as policy documents perhaps enhance arguments that promote the idea of objectivity. In addition to textual analysis, it would be rewarding to conduct interviews with relevant policy actors to further analyze the strategic framing process, and not only its product.

The results of this study could perhaps be placed within the larger picture of conservative actors increasingly applying to women-centered frames. Schreiber (2018) describes this trend as the “growing institutionalization of conservative women's organizations that claim to represent women”. In a broader sense, the topics in this essay could then offer a stepping stone to a wider discussion of women's interest and the political representation of women, with ideological shifts challenging our notion of what it means to be conservative, feminist –or both– in the United States today.

31

References Adams, G. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution. American Journal of Political ​ Science, 41(3), 718-737. doi:10.2307/2111673 ​ ​ ​

American Psychiatric Association. (2002). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders ​ (4th ed., text revision) (DSM-IV-TR). Arlington, VA: Author

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. (2008). Report ​ of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion. Washington, DC: Author. ​

Azpíroz, M.L. (2014). Framing and Political Discourse Analysis: Bush's trip to Europe in 2005.

Observatorio. 8. 75-96.

Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology,16: 611 – 639. ​ ​

Dadlez, E. & Andrews, W. L. (2010), Post-abortion Syndrome: Creating an Affliction. Bioethics ​ 24: 445-452. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01739.x ​

Daniels, C. R. (1996). At Women’s Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights. ​ ​ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Davies, S. (1999). From Moral Duty to Cultural Rights: A Case Study of Political Framing in

Education. Sociology of Education. 72:1-21 ​ ​

Eckstein, H. (1975). Case Studies and Theory in Political Science.Pp. 79-138 in Handbook of ​ Political Science, vol. 7, Political Science: Scope and Theory, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and ​

32

Nelson W. Polsby. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal Of ​ Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x ​ ​ ​

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J. & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping Abortion Discourses: ​ Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge ​ University Press.

Gallup poll, "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life," 2018-2019 Demographic Tables. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

(Retrieved 2020-05-04)

Gerring, J., & Cojocaru, L. (2016). Selecting Cases for Intensive Analysis. Sociological Methods ​ & Research, 45(3), 392–423. doi: 10.1177/0049124116631692 ​ ​ ​

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper Row. ​ ​ 1974.

Hertog, J.K. & McLeod, D.M. (2001). A Multiperspectival Approach to Framing Analysis: A

Field Guide. In S.D. Reese; O.H. Jr Gandy & A.E. Grant (eds.), Framing Public Life: ​ Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World (pp. 139-161) Mahwah, ​ N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Johnston, H., & Noakes, J. A. (2005). Frames of protest: social movements and the framing ​ perspective. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ​

33

King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in ​ Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ​

Lai, R. K. K. (2019, May 29). Abortion Bans: 9 States Have Passed Bills to Limit the Procedure

This Year. The New York Times. ​ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/abortion-laws-states.html (retrieved 2020-03-30) ​

Matthes, J. & Kohring, M. (2008). The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving

Reliability and Validity. Journal of Communication, 58: 258-279. ​ ​

Munson, Z. (2009). The Making of Pro-life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization Works. ​ ​

Novak, M. (2012, June 13). The Catholic Vote Swings. National Review. Retrieved from ​ ​ https://www.nationalreview.com

Chicago : University of Chicago Press

Oaks, L. (2009). What Are Pro-life Feminists Doing on Campus? NWSA Journal 21: 178 – 203. ​ ​

Rose, M. (2011). Pro-Life, Pro-Woman? Frame Extension in the American Antiabortion

Movement. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 32: 1 – 27. ​ ​

Reardon D. C. (2018). The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities. SAGE open medicine, 6, 2050312118807624. ​ ​ ​ ​ https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118807624

Reilly, K. (2019, May 29). Alabama's Lawmakers Passed a Near-Total Abortion Ban. Here's

34

What Happens Next. Time. https://time.com/5589528/alabama-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade/ ​ ​ ​ Retrieved 2020-05-05

Roth, R. (2000). Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights. Ithaca, NY: Cornell ​ ​ University Press

Schreiber, R. (2018). Is there a conservative feminism? An Empirical Account. Politics & ​ Gender, 14(1), 56-79. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1017/S1743923X17000587 ​

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame Alignment

Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51: ​ ​ 464 – 481.

Speckhard, A. C., & Rue, V. M. (1992). Postabortion syndrome: An emerging public health concern. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 95-119. ​ ​

Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge ​ ​ Studies in Comparative Politics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813245

Trumpy, A. J. (2014) Woman vs. Fetus: Frame Transformation and Intramovement Dynamics in the Pro-Life Movement, Sociological Spectrum, 34:2, 163-184, DOI: ​ ​ 10.1080/02732173.2014.878624

35

von Hagel, A., & Mansbach, D. (2016). Reproductive Rights in the Age of Human Rights Pro-life ​ Politics from Roe to Hobby Lobby. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US :Imprint: Palgrave ​ Macmillan.

Yanow, D. (2000). Qualitative Research Methods: Conducting interpretive policy analysis. ​ ​ ​ ​ Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412983747

36

Appendix

Analytical Matrix

Identified frames Defined problem Diagnosed cause Moral judgment Suggested remedies What is a casual What force is causing How is the What treatments are agent doing, and to the problem? problem and cause suggested, and which what costs and evaluated? effects are predicted? benefits?

Pro-death frame “Abortion advocates “Roe v. Wade “The amendment speak to women's attempted to define made it clear that the rights, but they when abortion of Constitution of ignore the unborn an unborn child Alabama of 1901 child” (1, 2) would be legal. does not include a ​ “50 million babies Judges and legal right to an have been aborted in scholars have abortion” (1, 1) ​ the United States disagreed and since the Roe dissented with its ​ decision in 1973” (1, finding” (1, 4) ​ 3) “so called abortion rights” (1, 4)

Selfish mother “This term does not “unborn child's “(a) The act of “The printed ​ frame include a condition mother” (1, 1) using or materials shall ​ based on a claim that prescribing any prominently display the woman is instrument, device, the following suffering from an medicine, drug, or statement: "The life emotional condition any other 4 means of each human being or a mental illness or substance with begins at conception. which will cause her the intent to Abortion will to engage in conduct destroy the life of terminate the life of a that intends to result an embryo or fetus separate, unique, in her death or the in his or her living human being." ​ death of her unborn mother's 5 womb; (3, 15) child” (1, 5) or 6 (b) The “view at least ​ “intent to terminate intentional seventy-two hours the pregnancy of a termination of the prior to the abortion woman known to be pregnancy of a an active ultrasound pregnant with mother by using or of the unborn child knowledge that the prescribing any 7 and hear the heartbeat termination by those instrument, device, of the unborn child if means will with medicine, drug, or the heartbeat is reasonable likelihood other means or audible” (3, 15) cause the death of substance with an “include information the unborn child” intention other on the possibility of ​ (1, 4) than to 8 increase an abortion causing the probability of a pain in the unborn live birth or to child” (3, 15) remove a dead [or “Explain the Missouri

37

dying] unborn alternatives to child” (3, 5) abortion services “ensuring that such program (3, 17) unborn human beings are not arbitrarily deprived of life” (3, 13) “Encouraging childbirth over abortion” (3, 13)

Fetal rights “It is estimated that “50 million babies “The self-evident “Human Life 6,000,000 Jewish have been aborted in truth found in Protection Act” (1, 1) people were 24 the United States natural law, that all “recognize and ​ murdered in German since the Roe human beings are support the sanctity ​ concentration camps decision in 1973” (1, equal from of unborn life and the ​ during World War II; 3) creation, was at rights of unborn ​ 3,000,000 people “incongruities in least one of the children” (1, 1) were executed by state law by bases for the “defines a person for Joseph Stalin's permitting some anti-slavery homicide purposes to regime in Soviet unborn children to be movement, the include an unborn gulags; 2,500,000 killed by abortion, women's suffrage child” (1, 2) people were while requiring that movement, the “ If those movements murdered during the unborn children be Nuremberg war had not been able to Chinese "Great Leap protected in crimes trials, and appeal to the truth of Forward" in 1958; non-abortion the American civil universal human 1,500,000 to circumstances” (3, rights movement.” equality, they could 3,000,000 people 14) (1, 2) not have been were murdered by the “In recognition successful. ” (1, 2) Khmer Rouge in that Almighty God “regulating and Cambodia during the is the author of restricting practices 1970s; and life, that all men that might cause the approximately and women are medical profession or 1,000,000 people "endowed by their society as a whole to were murdered Creator with become insensitive, during the Rwandan certain unalienable even disdainful, to genocide in 1994. All Rights, that among life (...) not only of these are widely these are Life" (3, unborn children, but acknowledged to 4) "Right to Life of all vulnerable and have been crimes the Unborn Child” innocent human life” ​ against humanity. (3, 6) (3, 13) ​ By comparison, more “the life of each “Safeguarding an than 50 million human being unborn child from the babies have been begins at serious harm of pain aborted in the United conception and by an abortion States since the Roe that unborn method that would decision in 1973, children have cause the unborn more than three times protectable child to experience the number who were interests in life, pain while she or he killed in German health, and is being killed” (3, death camps, Chinese well-being” (3, 13) purges, Stalin's 6-7) gulags, Cambodian “it is merely

38

killing fields, and the prudent to assume Rwandan genocide that pain can be combined” (1, 3-4) experienced even early in prenatal life” (3, 10) “prohibit the brutal and painful D & E abortion method at fourteen weeks gestational age or later (...), because if a comparable method of killing was used on: (a) A person convicted of murder in the first degree, it would be cruel and unusual punishment; or 162 (b) An animal, it would be unlawful” (3, 11) “Benefits (...) [s]ociety, by fostering respect for human life, born and unborn, at all stages of development, and by lessening societal tolerance of violence against innocent human life” (3, 12) “Eliminating unborn children with Down Syndrome raises grave concerns for the lives of those who do live with disabilities” (3, 24) “unborn human individual” (2, 5) Performing or inducing an abortion because of the sex of the unborn child is 20 repugnant to the values of equality of females and

39

males and the same opportunities for 21 girls and boys, and furthers a false mindset of female inferiority (3, 24)

Medical advances “define when “Since 1973, “medical science “Recent medical ​ frame abortion of an unborn advances in medical has increasingly advances” (1, 4) ​ child would be legal” and scientific recognized the “Fetal heartbeat, (1, 4) technology have humanity of the therefore, has become “the ambiguous greatly expanded our unborn child” (1, a key medical ​ ​ concept of viability knowledge of 2) “fetal predictor that an ​ that has been adopted prenatal life and the photography unborn human by the Supreme effects of abortion on shows the clear individual will reach Court” (3, 8) women.” (3, 6) development of a live birth” (2, 2), human being” (1, “Cardiac activity ​ 3) The General begins at a Assembly finds biologically and declares, identifiable moment ​ according to in time” (2, 2) contemporary “In medicine, a medical research special emphasis is (2, 2) placed on the “Medically, human heartbeat. The life is a continuum heartbeat is a from conception to discernible sign of death” (3,7) life at every stage of “Benefits (...) the human existence” (3, medical 7), profession, by “Today, however, preserving its physicians' and integrity and scientists' interests on fulfilling its life in the womb also commitment to do focus on other no harm” (3, 12) markers of development in the unborn child, including, but not limited to, presence of a heartbeat, brain development, a viable pregnancy or viable intrauterine pregnancy during the first trimester of pregnancy, and the ability to experience pain” (3, 8) “advances in medical technology and diagnoses” (3, 8)

40

PAS “protecting the health “Since 1973, “In order to make “The person who of the woman” (2, 3) advances in medical an informed choice performs the “protects pregnant and scientific about whether to examination for the women” (3, 4) technology have continue her presence of a fetal “Abortion procedures greatly expanded our pregnancy, the heartbeat shall give performed later in knowledge of pregnant woman the pregnant woman pregnancy have a prenatal life and the has a legitimate the option to view or ​ higher medical risk effects of abortion on interest in hear the fetal for women” (3, 11) women.” (3, 6) knowing the heartbeat.” (2, 3) ​ “In addition to the likelihood of the short-term risks of an fetus surviving to ​ abortion, studies have full-term birth found that the based upon the long-term physical presence of cardiac and psychological activity” (2, 3) consequences of abortion for women include, but are not limited to, an increased risk of preterm birth, low birthweight babies, and placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies, as well as serious behavioral health issues” (3, 12) “possible adverse psychological effects associated with the abortion” (3, 14) “These consequences of an abortion have a detrimental effect not only on women, their children, and their families, but also on an already burdened health care system, taxpayers, and the workforce” (3, 12)

Coercion “ensure that she is not “unborn child's “No woman upon a victim of coerced mother” (1, 1) “her whom an abortion is abortion” (3, 12) unborn child” (1, performed or 4) attempted to be “A woman on performed shall be whom an abortion criminally or civilly was performed or liable.” (1, 7) induced in “A woman upon violation of whom an abortion is subsection (1) of performed or induced Section 5 of this in violation of this

41

Act or subsection subsection shall not (1) of Section 6 of be prosecuted” (3, this Act may file a 26) civil action for the “protect the health ​ wrongful death of and safety of women her unborn child” and their 2 children, ​ (2, 8), “the both unborn and wrongful death of born” (3, 30) a child who had “No physician shall been born alive” perform or induce an (2, 8) “the abortion unless and intentional until the physician termination of the has obtained from the pregnancy of a woman her voluntary mother” (3, 5) and informed consent “The historical given freely and relationship of bias without coercion. If or discrimination the physician has by some family reason to believe that planning programs the woman is being and policies coerced into having towards poor and an abortion, the minority physician or qualified populations” (3, professional shall 24) inform the woman that services are available for her” (3, 19) Bill, page number in parenthesis. 1= AL, 2= KY, 3=MO.

42