In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled that the banning of contraceptives was a direct violation to the right to marital privacy in Griswold v Connecticut. Prior to this ruling, it was considered a crime for a person to use any form of drug or article to prevent conception. The catalyst for this case happened after Estelle Griswold, the director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C Lee Buxton, a doctor at Yale Medical School, were arrested for providing illegal contraception [2]. Both professionals claimed that the law violated the U.S. constitution, thus initiating the Griswold v. Connecticut case of 1965. The case ended in a 7-2 decision in favor of the defendants [2]. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas exclaimed that the Bill of Rights creates a general “right to privacy” for the people, and he pulls from certain amendments to support his claim [1]. The amendments he cites are the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (banned the quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), Ninth Amendment (protection of unnamed rights for the people), and the Fourteenth Amendment (requires states to provide due process and equal protection under the law to all their inhabitants) [1]. Through these amendments, it is evident that the people of America are granted fundamental rights without repercussions, including the right to privacy in intimacy and marriage, and banning the use of contraceptives is a violation of this right [5]. The legalization of contraceptives has had many positive impacts on individuals and families. According to the Planned Parenthood site, from 1960 to 2011, the percentage of women who completed at least four years of college multiplied by six, and the number of married women in the labor force nearly doubled in that same time [4]. Furthermore, Griswold v. Connecticut had more than just an impact on pregnancy prevention. Planned Parenthood also reported that 58% of all women who use the birth control pill use it for something other than pregnancy prevention, such as cramps, acne, or endometriosis (endometrial tissue growing outside the uterus) [4].
In Roe V. Wade in 1973, these same themes became evident again at a much larger scale. Before the case, states could forbid abortions with the exception of life-saving abortions for the mother. The implications of Griswold v. Connecticut gave the Supreme Court a solid foundation for why the ban on abortion was unconstitutional. This is evident in Justice Harry Blackmun’s explanation for the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision against the ban, where he claims that abortions were covered in the “zone of privacy”, as it has been previously ruled that marriage and contraception fell in this zone as well [6]. The Court also pulled from the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments again to show how the Constitution protects the right to privacy [6]. However, this didn’t put an end to the controversy around abortion practices. Yes, the right to privacy and the implications of Griswold v. Connecticut serve as important supporting legal factors in the advocation for legalized abortions, the lack of scientific and ethical evidence in these pieces alone is not enough. Essentially, the Griswold v. Connecticut case is a partial memory in the grand scheme of Roe v. Wade, and one would have to take evidence from other cases and scientific data to create the whole picture.
As of today, Griswold v. Connecticut has come full circle after the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade, and is now more relevant than has been in the previous few decades. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the overturning of Roe v. Wade could be the catalyst for the reversal of other important cases – including Griswold v. Connecticut [3]. Missouri has taken over the recent news by storm as they are trying to ban public funding for emergency contraception [3]. This would make it harder to find in stores and serve as an indirect restriction. In Tennessee, Senator Marsha Blackburn called the Griswold v. Connecticut case “constitutionally unsound” [3]. These occurrences show that America is growing increasingly divided when it comes to abortion and contraception prevention. Even though there have been positive outcomes to both concepts, it is clear that the ethical implications hold more weight to certain people (particularly conservatives).
Louis Harrison
Work Cited
[1] “A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. Pew Research Center, May 30, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/.
[2] “Griswold v. Connecticut.” Oyez. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496.
[3] Mazzo, Lauren. “Why People Are Talking about Griswold v. Connecticut after the Scotus Ruling.” POPSUGAR Fitness, June 24, 2022. https://www.popsugar.com/fitness/griswold-v-connecticut-roe-v-wade-ruling-48866375.
[4] Parenthood, Planned. “Griswold v. Connecticut.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/griswold-v-connecticut.
[5] “The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): PBS.” The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | PBS. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html.
[6] “The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973): PBS.” The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_roe.html.
Proud of its rich heritage and often considered a landmark in American, this luscious seaside city is home to thousands of retirees, families, and tourist heavy beaches. Behind this beautiful façade however, lies over half a decade of anti-abortion conflict and once served as an anti-abortion battleground as bombings and murders surrounding birthing rights and clinics began to surface nationally.
There was a time when access to abortions was a normal part of life in the US. They were marketed openly and were actually as a matter of fact, a booming business. Laws regulating abortions actually began due to concerns about poisoning rather than clauses on morality, religion, or even politics. And even though the topic was considered taboo in Christianity, the “Catholic Church implicitly accepted early abortions prior to ensoulment” [12]. It was not until 1969 when abortion began to become highly politicized in this country did the church begin to wholly condemn the practice.
In 1984, a triage of anti-abortion bombings took place Christmas Day targeted at the Ladies Center abortion clinic as well as two offices of doctors who briefly practiced abortion procedure. The attacks were later found to be orchestrated under the code name “Gideon Project” as directed by supposed divine evangelical calling to the perpetrators Matt Goldsby and Jimmy Simmons. Specifically, delivered as a “present for Jesus” [11].
The exact origins of the Gideon Project are actually scarce in research, with a quick Google search generating little to no leads. There is a modern group called CORE7 who has overtaken the name Gideon Project and has given it the revitalized purpose of “providing leadership in supporting a church’s staff and lay leadership in designing and implementing… values” [8]. The name itself has arbitrary originating ties to Gideon, judge of Israel -purported greatest of all 15 judges- but had then been ascribed ties to the clinic bombings of 1984, and has now been masked by CORE7 and other modern religious organizations that promote more socially acceptable messages. The fascinating development of the historical significance of the Gideon Project exemplifies the processual nature of memory and how the meaning ascribed to something changes upon the context and the nature of the media covered on it.
[3]
Persecution for Matt and Jimmy was delivered at last at the crux of criminal investigations in 1985 after having previously been brushed off the year prior. After being traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the two were taken into custody and confessed to federal agents. In their initial trial in court, the attorneys of those charged announced their intent to use insanity in their defense in which prosecutors agree to drop the charges related to the June bombing [3]. However, as anti-abortion sentiments grew under scrutiny in the following year, the two were convicted and were later arraigned for conspiracy and bombing.
The two 21 year old members of the First Assembly of God may be considered one of the first instances of an intersection in which divinity and abortion law came to be so closely associated. In the eyes of the progressive 21st century woke person, bringing religion into law is libel. God-fearing religious zealots, [predominantly evangelicalisms] transform from being unproblematically recluse to becoming the new villain in the battle for personal autonomy.
The great leap from relative disregard for abortion regulation to bombings and national coverage jolted the discussion on reproductive laws awake. The bombings, having occurred a decade after the official passing of Roe v. Wade into legislation showcased the growing secular and non secular tensions that had grown due to the open practice of abortion. What had previously been two groups maintaining a respectful disregard for each other grew into two groups that constantly clashed in ideology, typically at the clinic. With Roe v. Wade enacted, many pro-life protestors, many of which who fell under the belief that you shouldn’t “kill the baby because you don’t know what the lord has in for them”, went to the streets in front of abortion clinics to guilt-trip, shame, and condemn the practices occurring within [6].
The movement towards women’s rights and reproductive justice grows increasingly complex everyday, with increasing amount of involvement, a varied mix of evidenced situations, and alternative opinions towards the matter. Pre-Roe, roughly 67% of Catholic/Baptists opposed the concept of legal abortion, with the highest racial concentration being 78% White Southern Baptist- aka evangelical [10]. In a more recent 2019 Post-Roe poll, the majority 68% of Catholic/Christians were actually in favor of NOT overturning Roe v. Wade, a testament to growing progressive ideologies and science based futurity. However, within that statistic, 61% of White evangelicals still were in favor of over turning the policy [1].
Extreme anti-abortion displays have gotten more outrageous as time has progressed. Protesting has significantly transformed from mere protest in front of clinics as symbolic sites of controversy instead to usage of free speech to spread messages in a very public and visible manner. In our very own Chapel Hill, protesting clinics such as Planned Parenthood have seen a decrease in physical involvement, but instead, utilization of free speech on public university property has increased.
Just this last year, students may have witnessed the genocide awareness project by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform out in the center of the quad in which very visually grotesque imagery of abortion- images of fetus hands compared to a coin, decapitation, comparison to genocide- were posted up on over 12 foot tall poster boards to draw awareness to the pro-life movement [7]. The group condemns the clinic, however has not chosen to position itself in front of one. In a much more controversial location such as the quad, they gain positioning better.
While clinics were previously the alter by which extreme conservatives admonished publicly and privately, the landscape and methods of remembering both pro-life and pro-choice attitudes have changed. Clinics were previously the sites of immense controversy, with many direct protest attempts made physically on site. However, due to it becoming such a highly publicized issue as opposed to discussion in the 1980s, its materiality has changed to fit into the current landscape and has changed from physical protest to movement into the educational, public speech space.
Very little is simple, straightforward, and not nuanced about the abortion debate in America. Even the most straightforward aspects have a complicated story. Based on the debate happening today, one most likely expects that the debate was always centered on abortion. However, when Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973 in favor of Jane Roe, privacy of citizens was the central concern of the justices. Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority decision on Roe representing the opinions of Warren Earl Burger, William Orville Douglas, William Joseph Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. [1] The opinion relied on previous judicial decisions to determine a fundamental right to privacy, but also determined that this right was not absolute.
Nothing stands on its own, especially Supreme Court decisions. As background for further discussion the opinion examined laws and views concerning abortion in Roman, English, and Early American law as well as the history of abortions. The reason for observing this history is so the court can have the background when addressing the appellant’s claim that Texas’s statutes violate their right to personal liberty. [1] The opinion says this right is “embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in … the Bill of Rights or its penumbras …; or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment.” [1, p.129] The right to personal liberty supposedly specified in these areas of the Constitution became the focus of the debate and the opinion in Roe v. Wade. The opinion introduces this constitutional right to privacy saying it is found within the preceding areas of the Constitution and uses the earlier decisions of Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, Stanley v. Georgia, Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States, Boyd v. United States, Griswold v. Connecticut, Meyer v. Nebraska, and Palko v. Connecticut as justification. [1, p.152] Importantly Blackmun noted, “This right of privacy … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” [1, p.153] Subsequently the opinion lists several ways in which denying a woman the choice to have an abortion would cause harm, and even calls this harm “apparent.” However, the court did not agree with the appellant’s claim that the woman’s right is absolute. They noted that, “a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.” [1, p.154]
The appellee argued that a fetus is a person and therefore their rights must be protected as well. However, they also noted that no case could be cited that supports this view. Since every use of the word “person” in the Constitution only is applicable postnatally, the court concluded a fetus is not a person. However, they held that the state does have an interest at a certain point in development. In the discussion of what point state interest becomes important, the court considers many outside perspectives on when life begins. Important to the current abortion debate, the court even acknowledged the Catholic ensoulment theory that holds that life begins at conception. Even still, the law had never viewed the unborn as a whole person and so the court rejected that Texas could override a woman’s rights. [1, p.162] Since neither a woman’s right to privacy and abortion nor the State’s right to impose itself are absolute, a balance between the two must be reached. This compromise came in the form of a trimester approach to rights and legislation. The opinion states that during the first trimester all decisions must be left to the mother and her physician. During the second trimester the State may regulate abortion related to the health of the mother. And finally, during the third trimester the State may regulate or ban abortion, unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy. This trimester framework served to balance the rights and interests of all those involved. The Texas law at question in Roe was in contradiction with this new framework and so the court ruled it unconstitutional and sided with Roe.
Several years after the decision of Row v. Wade, Justice Blackmun sat down for an interview with Bill Moyers and reflected on his time in the court and Roe. Blackmun had been appointed to the Supreme Court unanimously as a supposed conservative justice. In the interview, Blackmun rejected that he was a conservative justice saying, “the round peg doesn’t fit into the square hole.” [4] On several occasions, including Roe, he decided against the conservative ideology while on the court. Blackmun said, “I’m not so sure that I have a judicial, constitutional ideology, at all. To me, every case involves people. … If we forget the humanity of the litigants before us that we’re in trouble … No matter how great our supposed legal philosophy can be.” [4] This is certainly reflected in his opinion on Roe v. Wade. One thing that is hardly mentioned in his majority opinion are political views. Instead, he wrote about, and based his decision on, the wording in the Constitution, prior judicial decisions, and most importantly the effect of certain outcomes on those at interest. This more impartial approach made his decision stand up to scrutiny more resiliently, and defended him, a bit, from attacks on his character. Of course, he was still attacked. On such a controversial case no result would have made everyone happy. By removing himself from political turmoil and focusing on citizen’s humanity, he gave himself more of a leg to stand on when constructing this opinion.
The way in which we remember Blackmun’s opinion will continuously change. At the time of the decision, it did not widely register as a monumental decision. One pro-Roe woman said, “I did not really register how impactful Roe was [at the time],” and an anti-abortion woman mentioned, “It was just a nonissue for me.” [2] However even by the time Blackmun had his interview with Moyers, debate and controversy around Roe had grown to the point that Moyers asked Blackmun if he thought Roe would be overturned. Blackmun responded, “I think any case up here always stands a chance of being overturned. … That will depend primarily on the personnel of the Court. … But it has stood for fourteen years, now. I think it is a landmark decision along the road that we must take toward the emancipation of women.” [4] Of course, now it has been overruled by a 5-4 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. The current impact of Roe is solely its cultural memory since it has been overturned. Yet despite that fact, 50 years later it feels that we discuss the opinion more now than we ever did when it was decided. So long as abortion is a dividing issue in America, Blackmun’s words will be important, debated, and remembered by Americans.
-Will Scurria
Works Cited
[1] Blackmun, Harry A, and Supreme Court Of The United States. U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1972. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/.
TALLAHASSEE, FL – FEBRUARY 16: Advocates for bodily autonomy march to the Florida Capitol to protest a bill before the Florida legislature to limit abortions on February 16, 2022 in Tallahassee, Florida. (Photo by Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images) https://www.npr.org/2022/02/17/1081450530/florida-house-abortion-ban
Before Roe v. Wade
The memory of Roe v. Wade has brought the United States through numerous phases. Specifically, Florida has gone through various changes in regards to the memory of Roe v. Wade and other abortion laws. Florida provided citizens with a constitutional right of a freestanding privacy policy [2]. That policy was challenged in 1989 when In re T.W. appeared before the Florida Supreme Court. The In re T.W. case stated that “Prior to undergoing an abortion, a *1189 minor must obtain parental consent or, alternatively, must convince a court that she is sufficiently mature to make the decision herself or that, if she is immature, the abortion nevertheless is in her best interests [3].” This case requires parental consent before a mother can proceed with an abortion which conflicted with Florida’s constitution of privacy. The overall problem of this was that Florida had two constitutional protections, a general privacy right along with a privacy right protecting an individual’s decisions relating to medical care, and one constitutional provision, In re T.W. [2].
Recent Abortion Laws
As of July 1, 2022, Floridians went from being able to receive an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy (in memory of Roe v. Wade) to not be able to receive an abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy (Roe v. Wade being overturned). An exception to an abortion procedure being legally performed after the 15th week would be if the mother could potentially result in serious injury or death, or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality [4]. More restrictions that were placed into effect on June 28, 2022 include: a patient must receive mandatory state directed counseling, a parent must provide consent for the abortion, an ultrasound must be provided for the mother, health plans and public funds will only be provided in cases such as rape or incest, and for life threatening cases an abortion can be provided after 24 weeks of the last menstruation cycle [5].
Additionally, on July 1 2022, the HB5 law prohibited any abortions to take place if the gestational, “gestation was defined in HB5 (2022) as being calculated from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period,” age of the fetus was after 15 weeks. This was implemented to “reduce fatal and infant mortality [1].” Although as of April 3, 2023, Florida passed a new Heartbeat Protection Act. The passing of this act prohibits any abortions to take place after 6 weeks of pregnancy. Certain circumstances have been made an exception such as incest, rape, human trafficking, or diagnosed fetal fatal abnormality which extends the abortion cut off back to 15 weeks [6]. Senator Grall spoke on the Bill that was passed, “This bill represents an unprecedented opportunity to protect innocent life, and to stand with the brave moms who choose life for their babies. For 50 years, it was legal in this country to kill unborn children, and during that time, abortion has touched every single one of us. We have to grieve for what we have done as a country. This bill makes certain our laws reflect the strongest protections for innocent life [6].” The senator also makes sure to emphasize how instead of promoting abortion they will promote adoption and support families who have the proper resources to take care of children in the system.
It is important to mention how Florida provides numerous ways of support for those who “choose life for their babies [6]”. SB 300 in Florida states that counseling and mentoring sessions will be provided for the families if wanted. Another way the Florida government provided support includes assisting with non-medical materials such as cribs, car seats, clothing, formula, etc., for the child. In addition, SB 2500 includes ~$475 million dollars towards postpartum care coverage on top of the $30 million of new funding that was included in the SB 300. The SB 300 also calls for in person abortions and prohibits abortion medication to be delivered by mail [6]. From these bills it appears that Florida representatives want to give the impression that the mental and physical health of the mother and the status of the fetus is a top concern. The incentives provided for not partaking in abortions try to cover up the cultural memory of Roe v. Wade.
A notable observation from the words of Senator Grall is that she never mentioned the word “fetus”, instead she continuously referred to it as an unborn child. This leads to the possible assumption that Florida’s representatives believe the status of a fetus as an entity is a human life with rights. In connection to this, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence how everyone deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since an embryo forms a heartbeat after about 6 weeks, the Florida government passed this Heartbeat Protection Act in order to protect what they consider a life. According to Florida, this means the fetus has unalienable rights in memory of our Declaration of Independence.
Anaya Williams
Works Cited
[1] CS/HB 5 (2022) – Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality. Bills for the Regular Session 2023 | Florida House of Representatives. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2023, from https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/bills.aspx
After Roe v. Wade, pro-life groups and states organized efforts to counteract the ruling in favor of abortion rights. Trigger laws were one of these political mechanisms used to mobilize anti-abortion agendas. These laws were written and passed by state governments to ban abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade were overturned [5]. They are constitutional in the respect that they have no implications and are not enforced unless their conditions are met [5]. Trigger laws were written and passed into the state constitutions of 13 states: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
“What happens if Roe v. Wade were overturned” The Washington Post [8]
Southern Correlation
The prevalence of trigger laws in the South is apparent, with 8 of 13 states located in the South. Correlations to religion, political affiliation, and patriarchal prevalence in Southern culture can be used to explain this. Such laws can be said to represent the memory of Southern prosperity. They represent the societal norms of the time and can reflect the ever-lasting image of “the good old days.” Holding on to the past is a way of memorializing Southern history and consecrating the hegemonic narrative. Preserving these old ways of life, however, prevents the processual aspect of memory from utilizing the lessons of the past to grow.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma was one of the first states to pass a trigger law that entirely banned abortion in May of 2022 [1]. The law, H.B. 4327, states “any person…may bring civil action against any person who performs or induces an abortion, knowing engages in conduct that aids the performance of an abortion, or intends to engage in an abortion” [2]. Such prohibitions on abortion are applicable immediately after conception [6]. Punishments for engaging in any of these acts include incurring “injunctive relief sufficient to prevent the defendant from violating this act, statutory damages in an amount of no less than $10,000, nominal and compensatory damages, and court costs and attorney fees” [2].
Such laws that promote the civilian persecution of individuals seeking abortions are colloquially termed “bounty hunter” laws and pose serious implications to society. Actively seeking out others can possibly encroach on personal rights to privacy and speech.
After the Dobbs decision, this total abortion ban went into effect after a final certification by an attorney general [7]. In March of 2023, the Oklahoma Supreme Court amended this law to allow abortion only when the pregnancy is “necessary to preserve her life” [3]. This law speaks of preservation in terms of physical health only and does not consider the possible emotional harm/trauma that could threaten the life of the person who’s bearing an unwanted pregnancy.
Mississippi
Mississippi passed its trigger law, S.B. 2391, in 2007. This law states” No abortion shall be performed or induced in the State of Mississippi, except in the case where necessary for the preservation of the mother’s life or where the pregnancy was caused by rape” [4]. This law is applicable immediately after conception. Punishments are stated to include, “imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Correction for not less than one year nor more than ten years” [4].
In the event of a legal abortion, the law interestingly notes that the physician must go through a set of precautionary steps. The physician is obligated to “perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone service, offer to provide the patient with the opportunity to view the active ultrasound image…and heartbeat if audible, offer to provide the patient with a physical picture of the ultrasound image, obtain the patient’s signature, and retain a copy of the signed certification form” [4]. Although some of these steps follow necessary medical procedures, some attempt to emotionally sway the patient into keeping the fetus. By asking the patient to listen to the heartbeat and keep a picture of the ultrasound, it evokes emotions of shame and regret during the process. This law is especially interesting when considering the initial conditions of this abortion. In Mississippi, these patients will be either in life-threatening conditions or rape victims. Guilt-tripping a person with a uterus for being a victim poses salient questions to the morality of these laws. In addition, this law makes a point to mention the picture must be “of a quality consistent with standard medical practice” and “shall accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs” [4].
Conclusion
Trigger laws represent the continuous effort to deny reproductive rights but also the fierce loyalty to a false narrative of the South. The South continues to mold memory into something that preserves its core values. These core values were of the prosperous South and its strong familial ties, founded in Christianity. Preservation of gender imbalances is ingrained into the laws and political machines of these states. Without access to abortion, the true effects of the Dobbs decision and the enacting of these laws are unknown. However, it can be predicted that with the recent acquisition of agency, those with a uterus will continue to be outspoken and challenge the hegemony of the South.
Anti-abortion protestors outside a Planned Parenthood health center in Washington, D.C. Mario Tama/Getty Images
ABSTRACT
Since the 1977 Roe v. Wade decision, anti-abortion violence has loomed around abortion providers and clinics. Protesters threaten arson, murder, bombs, or kidnappings, among others, and sometimes act on those threats–one doctor was shot in the back walking into his clinic in the 1990s. This piece examines those trends and reflects on how the knowledge of these things (or lack thereof) might tell us something about collective memory.
ANALYSIS
The recent overturn of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision may call to mind imagery of anti-abortion signage, people standing outside Planned Parenthood clinics, or extremists threatening to burn down clinics or kill the people who run them. While this may seem like a recent phenomenon–threatening and/or enacting mass violence–anti-abortion violence has existed to some extent since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided.
Anti-abortion violence takes many forms. While harassment is most common [6], threats or acts of arson, gun violence, or vandalism (which includes breaking things or graffiti) also occur. Harassment has many definitions, including vocal protest, photographing or videoing patients at abortion clinics, approaching patient vehicles, and recording license plates [6].
The 1980s and 90s saw a spike in anti-abortion violence (see Table 1). 1984-86, in particular, saw rises in almost every type of violence or threatened violence.
Barbara Radford was executive director of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) in 1993 and wrote an article with Federation representative Gina Shaw at that time [3]. Their writing pointed to the work of a sociologist, Dallas Blanchard, and his idea that the rise in antiabortion violence in the mid-80s was tied to discontent with Ronald Reagan’s lack of progress with antiabortion legislature.
However, the violence didn’t continue on a downward trend when Reagan left office in 1988 and was replaced by George Bush.
A New York Times article reported data from the NAF in 1993, saying that vandalism between 1991 and 1992 had “more than doubled” and that cases of arson had tripled [5].
In 1993, amidst the rise in violence, an abortion provider was murdered. Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, FL, was shot in the back three times while walking into his clinic in March of ’93 by anti-abortion protester Michael F. Griffin [5].
It wasn’t an isolated incident. Following the murder of Dr. Gunn, a woman named Rachelle Shelley Shannon “began corresponding with Griffin while he was in prison. The man who she called “the awesomest greatest hero of our time” did nothing to dissuade her from then going out and attempting to kill a doctor in Wichita, Kansas. Her shots wounded, but did not kill, and Shannon was arrested and convicted” [1].
Another man, Paul Hill, went on to kill Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, again in Pensacola, FL, in 1994.
Following the string of murders, Congress passed the FACE Act in 1994. The FACE Act protects abortion clinics and “pro-life pregnancy counseling services” alike, pulling both under the umbrella of “reproductive health services”[2]. FACE, or the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, “prohibits violent, threatening, damaging and obstructive conduct intended to injure, intimidate or interfere with the right to seek, obtain or provide reproductive health services” [2]. The law makes things like harming abortion clinic workers or people escorting patients a criminal offense. It also prohibits “threats of bodily harm” [2] to patients or workers, blockades, and arson [2]. The consequences are one year in prison or a fine of varying amount [2].
Additionally, anti-abortion violence like arson and gun violence at abortion clinics can fit the definition of domestic terrorism [7] given by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Acts of domestic terrorism are “activities” “involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appearing to be or intended to:
intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion; or
affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
It is worth noting that historically, the FBI has been generally hesitant to classify acts of anti-abortion violence as domestic terrorism.
It is also worth noting that with the Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision, the FACE Act is no longer stable in law. On April 6, 2023, United States Congressman Chip Roy of Texas (R) announced in a press release his intent to defund the FACE Act along with 11 other members of Congress because “the law has since been weaponized by the Department of Justice to wrongly target pro-life individuals” [4].
Bringing the Past to the Present
With the onset of the Internet, harassment online and in person via picketing have moved to the forefront of anti-abortion violence (see Tables 2, 3, and 4). Numbers are incredibly higher than in the 80s, which could be attributed in part to the interconnectivity of today’s world. While the data may not show that physical/actual violence (as opposed to deterrents/harassment) are as prominent as they used to be, it’s important to recognize the role of the access to so much information that so many people have today. The Internet plays a part in how thoughts of anti-abortion violence spread today–with AI and misinformation campaigns abounding, it can be difficult to tell what’s real or if something really happened or was said by someone. Even if information is false, it can spread like wildfire and cause action in the real world.
TABLE 2. [9] View the interactive version here: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kmGWZ/1/TABLE 3. [10] View the interactive version here: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/pJ2Ya/1/TABLE 4. [11] View the interactive version here: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/JPbB1/
Anti-Abortion Violence in Collective Memory
Our collective understanding of anti-abortion violence has definitely been influenced by the Internet, but it has, in my opinion, also been influenced by the taboo surrounding abortion in general. I had no idea that people had been murdered for performing abortions or that there had been so much violence ever since Roe v. Wade was passed. I assumed (rather naively, but nonetheless) that the major feeling would have been to rejoice in the first years after the decision. Roe v.Wade isn’t something I recall discussing in school beyond the fact that it happened, and my guess is that many people have had similar experiences.
It’s indicative of both the processual and partial aspects of collective memory. Over the years, Roe v. Wade was simplified and the meaning changed as a generation was born that had not known life without it. It was partial because some things, like the murder of Dr. Gunn, were left out of mainstream memory (as were things like the Jane Collective).
Perhaps people avoided talking about it to try to ignore that it had happened, a sort of abstract designation (designation in this instance is used to mean “the marking of a site that simply denotes that something happened there”, as opposed to sanctifying it or obliterating it from memory).
Regardless, Dobbs v. Jackson has pulled Roe v. Wade and all that came after to the forefront of collective memory.
Written by Abigail Pittman.
SOURCES
[1] “Dr. David Gunn Is Murdered by Anti-Abortion Activist.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 8 Mar. 2021, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dr-david-gunn-is-murdered-by-anti-abortion-activist.
[2] “Protecting Patients and Health Care Providers.” The United States Department of Justice, The United States Department of Justice, 15 Sept. 2022, https://www.justice.gov/crt/protecting-patients-and-health-care-providers.
[3] Radford, Barbara, and Gina Shaw. “Antiabortion Violence: Causes and Effects.” Women’s Health Issues, vol. 3, no. 3, 1993, pp. 144–151., https://doi.org/10.1016/s1049-3867(05)80248-8.
[4] “Rep. Chip Roy Leads Effort to Defund Face Act.” Representative Chip Roy, Representative Chip Roy, 6 Apr. 2023, https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-chip-roy-leads-effort-defund-face-act.
[5] Rohter, Larry. “Doctor Is Slain During Protest Over Abortions.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Mar. 1993, https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/11/us/doctor-is-slain-during-protest-over-abortions.html.
[6] Table 2 Analysis. Russo, Jennefer A., et al. “Antiabortion Violence in the United States.” Contraception, vol. 86, no. 5, Nov. 2012, pp. 562–566., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.02.011.
[7] “Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism.” Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, Oct. 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/publication/strategic-intelligence-assessment-and-data-domestic-terrorism.
[8] Table 1: Wilson, Michele, and John Lynxwiler. “Abortion Clinic Violence as Terrorism.” Terrorism, vol. 11, no. 4, 1988, pp. 263–273., https://doi.org/10.1080/10576108808435717.
[9] Table 2: “NAF Violence and Disruption Statistics – National Abortion Federation (90s).” National Abortion Federation, National Abortion Federation, https://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_stats.pdf.
[10] Table 3: “Violence & Disruption Statistics Overview – National Abortion Federation (2010s).” National Abortion Federation, National Abortion Federation, https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_NAF_VD_Stats_Final.pdf.
[11] Table 4: “Violence & Disruption Statistics Overview – National Abortion Federation (2020s).” National Abortion Federation, National Abortion Federation, https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021_NAF_VD_Stats_Final.pdf.
The semiotics of Roe v. Wade are some of the most vehemently contested political objects in modern U.S. history. The initial judicial ruling did not lend itself to a political reading – the majority opinion was comprised of three republican justices (Blackmun, Burger, Stewart) and four democrats (Brennan Jr., Douglas, Marshall, Powell); the dissent, one republican (Rehnquist) and one democrat (White)1. Most heavily contested Supreme Court decisions are decided 5-4. Roe’s initial 7-2 indicates a significant shift in the meaning of abortion in the U.S. from the decision of the case to the present, and the presence of justices from each major political party in both the majority opinion and dissent indicate a significant politicization of abortion in the U.S. since 1973.
The establishment and erosion of abortion rights in the U.S. is structured by the bounds of the constitution. As such, there is no possibility of a medically informed decision – the fight instead proceeds by associations of movements and opinions with pro- or anti-constitutional stances, which themselves are connotatively equivalent to pro- or anti-Americanism. The lifetime of Roe saw a significant revival in conservative rhetoric, pioneered by Reagan and brought to its logical conclusion by Trump.
Legal Privileges of the Unborn and their Mothers
Rhetoric of abortion discourse in the U.S. is structured by the status of an unborn fetus as living or not. However, in the legal sphere, abortion rights were affirmed with respect to the rights of mothers, not fetuses. In his majority opinion, Blackmun affirmed that “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit… on legislative power to enact laws such as [the Texas criminal abortion statutes of 1970].”2
The names of the factions, pro-life and pro-choice, imbue a sense of opposition between the life of a fetus and choice of its mother, and implicitly affirm the view that fetuses are living beings. It is unsurprising, then, that these terms originated from the pro-life faction soon after the ’73 Roe decision. These terms’ lasting impact introduced a moral element to public opinion on abortion which has dragged debate on the issue to a standstill – the determination of the start of the life of a child became the deciding factor in public opinion on abortion, but this designation is arbitrary. Different possibilities for the “beginning” of a fetus’s life have implicit political implications which often go unacknowledged.
Jane Roe: Indeterminate Symbol of the Abortion Debate
Norma McCorvey, anonymized under the pseudonym Jane Roe, was the plaintiff in Roe. She represented an often-overlooked class; poor women in the South. She constituted a powerful image for the abortion debate when she shed her anonymity in the early 80’s. McCorvey was initially on the side of Roe defenders,2 necessarily so, considering her role in the landmark decision. In 1995 she was approached by Philip Benham, an Evangelical and polemic figure of the Christian right.3 Benham baptized McCorvey on film that same year, giving the new right a powerful image in its arsenal: the metaphorical cleansing of pro-abortion opinions in the woman who was ultimately responsible for the most significant advancement in abortion accessibility in U.S. history. McCorvey shifted her position again during her self-proclaimed “deathbed confession” in the 2020 documentary AKA Jane Roe. She felt used by pro-lifers and claimed to “always” have supported pro-choice stance.3 However, her image at this point was well-utilized by the new right to reinforce the moral obligation of Christians to resist abortion. This intentional creation of an image demonstrates the power narrativization holds to change historical floes, and the malleability of historical memory.
The Evangelical Revival and Ronald Reagan
The Evangelical Revival of the 1970’s grounded its rhetoric in a novel popular interpretation of the Christian Bible by Evangelicals, a reaction to the ’73 Roe decision. The Bible says nothing explicit concerning abortion, which explains why no homogenous Christian opinion on abortion emerged until the biblical reinterpretation catalyzed by Roe. This reinterpretation was accomplished in a variety of ways, most of which employ a generous reading of Exodus 21:22-25: “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm… he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then [he] shall pay life for life.”4 Glaringly, this passage concerns the practice of incidental abortion, having nothing to do with the choice of the victim. The content of the message is irrelevant; sermons based on this passage quickly mobilized a near-unanimous condemnation of abortion among Christians in the early 80’s.
In his essay Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, Ronald Reagan criticizes the rhetoric of pro-abortion actors as eugenic, comparing it to “‘quality control’ to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.”5 Notably, Reagan makes no appeals to the Christian god in his paper. He addresses the portion of Republicans not moved by the shift in biblical understanding.
Between biblical reinterpretation and the concerted efforts of Reagan, restricting abortion access on moral and religious grounds became the default Republican position just ten years after Roe. Contrastively, the abortion rights camp did not establish any new arguments to defend abortion access. The leading narrative in support of abortion rights temporarily adopted rhetoric of population control, which when defeated in the public sphere fell back on the justification of the original Roe ruling.
Final Opinion on Roe
Roe was overturned in the 2022 decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.6 This decision reflects the narrativization and politicization of abortion in America. In contrast with the ’73 Roe decision, the majority opinion in Dobbs was held exclusively by Republican justices; the dissent, exclusively Democrats. Roe was overturned with a 5-3 vote (effectively 5-4 considering the absence of one Democratic Justice).
The life and death of Roe reflect the power of images in U.S. cultural memory. Few in the U.S. consider abortion access an apolitical topic today, but the forces responsible for its politicization were set in motion deliberately and permanently transformed the cultural memory of abortion in the U.S.
References
Craig, B. H., & O’Brien, D. M. (1993). Abortion and American Politics. Chatham House Publishing.
Blackmun, H. A. & Supreme Court of The United States. (1972) U.S. Reports: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410113/.
Sweeney, Nick. (2020). AKA Jane Roe. Vice Studios.
Exodus 21:22-25. (2001). English Standard Version Bible. ESV Online. https://esv.literalword.com/
Reagan, Ronald. (1984). Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Self-published.
Dwyer, Devin. (2022). Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark case on abortion rights. ABC News.https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-overturns-roe-wade-landmark-case-abortion/story?id=85160781
The court case of Dobbs v. Jackson is a monumental moment in American memory and history. With the resurgence of abortions around 2020 and a social experience that is extremely focused on the issue, this decision came as a shock to many and had a rippling effect all over the United States. To give an excerpt from the court documents to explain the case, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”[1].
When it comes to access to safe abortions, it is a right that was enacted by Roe v. Wade, which said that the constitution provides grounds for individual liberty to induce abortion, and thus we saw a fairly steady rate in the United States. Now that this has been overturned, we have seen a rapid change from many states, mainly in the south. To quote Coverdale et. al in their article Access to Abortion After Dobbs… “As of August 25, 2022, nine states have banned abortion, four states have banned abortion at 6 weeks after the last menstrual period, and one state has banned abortion at 20 weeks after the last menstrual period”[2]. This makes it very difficult for women who previously had the means to abortion to get the care they need.
Because of this lack of access to safe abortions, an unfortunate alternative enters the narrative; unsafe and technically illegal abortion strategies. Although this concept is nothing new to the rest of the world, especially developing countries, as seen in The Lancet, “Every year, about 19–20 million abortions are done by individuals without the requisite skills, or in environments below minimum medical standards, or both.”[3], it is new to the US. Women that used to be able to go to their local planned parenthood or reliable medical provider, are now turning to strategies that not only of course endanger the safety of the fetus, they endanger themselves. “An estimated 68 000 women die as a result, and millions more have complications, many permanent. Important causes of death include hemorrhage, infection, and poisoning”[3]. This legislation is providing a barrier to health for the women in our country. This is a situation where we know that abortion is going to happen whether legal or not, and it is safer to provide legal access for all.
In terms of the memory of this topic and the social and human context surrounding abortion, there lies an extreme variance. There are many polarizing views ranging from avid supporters of anti abortion and abortion, which creates a very interesting social dynamic. Additionally, within the two respective groups there is even more dissonance with differing opinions on how long abortion should be allowed, to who, in what environment, etc. These layers of disagreement create a very foggy memory of the topic. However, all will agree that these sets of court cases will remain vivid in the way that in extreme moments of conflict, politically and socially, memories tend to grow strong and hold a very profound and biased place in the minds of the affected.
William Johnston
Works Cited
[1]Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. v. Dobbs et al. (2022). 999 F.3d 530.
[2] Coverdale, J., Gordon, M.R., Beresin, E.V. et al. Access to Abortion After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Advocacy and a Call to Action for the Profession of Psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry47, 1–6 (2023).
[3] Murray, C. J., & Lopez, A. D. (2006). Evidence-based health policy – Lessons from the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 368(9549), 761-766. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69565-4
United States v. Vuitch is one of the first cases heard by the Supreme Court to deal with the constitutionality of a restricting law on medical abortions that would become a major precedent in the case of Roe v. Wade. Dr. Milan Vuitch was a Serbian immigrant and licensed physician in the United States who worked primarily in Washington, D.C. throughout the 1960s [4]. Under Washington, D.C. law, doctors such as Vuitch could provide legal abortions to women if their health or life were at risk according to their professional opinion [3]. The District of Columbia Code 22-201 stated that whomever procures, produces, or attempts to procure or produce an abortion of a woman will be imprisoned for up to 10 years unless the procedure was to preserve a woman’s life or health [2]. The definition of the word “health” was mostly up to the doctor’s interpretation, which would result in conflict in the case of Dr. Vuitch. The law did not protect doctors from the chance of getting into serious legal trouble if the necessity of a woman’s abortion was unclear at the time. Since the start of his practice in 1960, Vuitch was arrested 16 times and released [3]. With this said, in 1969, Milan Vuitch was convicted for the first time for performing an illegal abortion and sentenced to 1 year in prison [4]. This would lead to Vuitch challenging the law he was convicted under for being “unconstitutionally vague” [3]. Gerhard Gesell, the judge who heard Vuitch’s case at the district court, agreed with Vuitch’s claim that the law was unconstitutionally vague. He claimed that the word “health” was too uncertain and that the law violated the Fifth Amendment right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty [3]. With this said, Gesell dismissed the imputations against Vuitch. After Gesell’s decision, the United States government announced its plan to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The plan was followed through, and on April 21, 1971, Vuitch’s conviction was no longer overturned and the abortion law was back in place [6]. Though the Washington, D.C. law was reinstated, many historians claim that the abortion rights movement regarded this case as a victory in several respects [3]. This case set a precedent for allowing the term “health” to encompass both physical and mental well-being, as well as reaffirming that the burden of proof rested with the prosecution [2].
Looking into aspects of Dr. Milan Vuitch’s life from a sociocultural lens is important for fully understanding this case’s impact, the complex history and memory of medical abortion practices, and how his argument would later play into the abortion rights movement. Several newspaper publications, one of which was The Washington Post, emphasized that Vuitch was an immigrant from Serbia in an attempt to assert that his practice of providing abortions was related to his race and immigrant status [4]. Additionally, other articles described him as running an “abortion mill” that lacked consideration for women’s health, which Vuitch rejected [4]. The scrutiny that he faced throughout the years shows a combination of America’s issues besides abortion rights. Despite these continuous accusations, Vuitch was not one to hide his practice and looked for opportunities to share it to open up discussion about women’s reproductive rights. He wanted to explain the public contexts that motivated women to engage in his practice [4]. During an interview with Lawrence Lader, an early abortion rights movement leader, Vuitch claimed that “women cry for help and doctors just chase them away” [1]. What makes this case interesting is how open Vuitch’s defiance was to Code 22-201 in an attempt to create discussion and challenge common medical practice. In hindsight, District Judge Gesell, who claimed it is “imperative that uniform medical abortion services be provided for all segments of the population, the poor as well as the rich,” played an important role in furthering the discussion of women’s right to an abortion [5]. United States v. Vuitch is an impactful form of processual memory because of the lengthy legal processes of this case and how it shaped many of the ideals used when fighting against reproductive injustices. Additionally, this historical case is an example of material memory through the documentation, including newspaper articles written about Vuitch and many of his patients’ records used throughout the trial. The different dynamics of memory associated with this event add to its complexity while also revealing how broader sociocultural views of abortion have changed.
The impact of United States v. Vuitch rippled into the case of Roe v. Wade (1973). Both cases highlighted how abortion laws at the time were used to restrict women’s rights to abortion, which would spark discourse for years to come. Furthermore, the decision in United States v. Vuitch to reinstate the restrictive abortion law as well as Vuitch’s conviction fueled the fire to continue pushing for a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. The Vuitch case set a precedent for dissecting restrictive abortion laws while also establishing the debate of privacy rights in healthcare that would provide part of the legal framework for Roe v. Wade [4]. With this said, the discourse surrounding Vuitch established increasing support for the abortion rights movement.
[4] Lowe, Nicholas. “Fighting Against All Odds: How Three Ethnically and Racially Diverse Abortion Providers Overcame Public Scrutiny to Challenge Society’s Outlook on the Controversial Abortion Laws.” Newcomb College Institute Research on Women, Gender, & Feminism (2014). https://journals.tulane.edu/NAJ/article/view/201.
[5] Moreno, Paul. “Roe v. Wade’s Opening Act, 50 years Later: The Supreme Court Handed Down its First Abortion Case, U.S. v. Vuitch, on April 21, 1971.” The American Spectator (April 21, 2021). https://spectator.org/roe-v-wade-us-vuitch-50-years-later/.
Language is a powerful tool that can shape our perception of the world around us. The words we use can influence how we view people, events, and concepts. Keywords and language play a significant role in shaping the progression of abortion debates in American consciousness and memory. The language used by politicians, activists, and media outlets influence how people perceive the issue and the arguments presented on both sides. Even subconsciously, the words we hear that may seem matter of fact or impartial have specific connotations that shape our ultimate perspective on what we hear. This phenomenon is especially impactful in an emotionally charged and highly controversial topic such as abortion. Vocabulary plays a key role in defining the ideological constructions of social movement organizations. Framing of an event or cause through highly specific language is a method to mobilize or maintain the support of members(McCaffery et al). This “tactic” is intrinsic to any kind of social movement or even day to day arguments, but it is important to be aware of how keywords and the underlying connotations of our language may influence how we perceive what is occurring around us.
The most prominent example of utilization of language being put to use in abortion debates are the terms “pro-life” versus “pro-choice.” Supporters of the anti-abortion movement often use the term “pro-life” to emphasize the value they place on protecting the life of the fetus, while proponents of abortion rights use the term “pro-choice” to highlight the importance of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. The use of these terms can frame the debate in a way that puts one side on the moral high ground, while portraying the other side as being in opposition to human life or women’s rights. Similarly, the use of emotive language can also influence public opinion on the issue. Anti-abortion advocates might use language such as “murder” or “killing” to describe abortion, while those who support the right to choose might use words like “reproductive freedom” or “healthcare” to frame the issue in a different light. These terms can trigger strong emotional responses in people, leading to more intense division and rigidity of opinion. Overall, the language used in the abortion debate can have a profound impact on how people perceive the issue and the arguments presented by both sides. There is a “battle” for control of the public vocabulary which inevitably defines the characterization of players on both sides, and the shape that the narrative of abortion in America will take over time.
The language used in abortion debates has evolved over time, reflecting changes in societal attitudes, medical advancements, and political developments. Throughout history women and physicians have made use of a wide variety of abortive techniques, with equally varied responses from societies differing both spatially and temporally. Abortifacient plants and early “surgical” methods were well documented and widely used for centuries, although the level of secrecy or shame demanded by societal opinion was highly varied and is reflected in the informative but contradictory language of primary source material(Hull, pg 11-14). In the late 19th century to early 20th century, the medicalization of abortion began, and the term “therapeutic abortion” was coined to describe procedures performed to save the life of the mother. The word “abortion” began to be used more widely to describe both legal and illegal procedures. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution brought abortion to the forefront of public discourse(Hull). The terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” emerged to describe the two sides of the debate. In the later 20th century, the use of emotionally charged language became more prevalent in abortion debates. “Partial-birth abortion” was coined to describe a specific late-term abortion procedure, called dilation and extraction or D&E. “Partial birth abortion” was not a term used by any medical authority, but it was quickly adopted by the anti-abortion movement and rapidly spread into public imagination(Johnson et. al). In the 2000s and carried through to the present day, language used in abortion debates has become increasingly polarized, with each side using more extreme language to vilify the other. Terms like “baby killer” and “fetus worshiper” are sometimes used by each side to describe the other. The use of scientific and medical terminology has also become more prevalent, with discussions of “viability,” “gestational age,” and “fetal pain” playing a prominent role in the debate. These keywords are used by both sides of the dispute to attempt to dominate public discourse. The overall effect of this type of vocabulary is the reduction of complex issues into simplified, persuasive, and powerfully divisive ideological constructions.
The evolution and impact of language choice is further exemplified in the Supreme Court decisions dictating shifts in abortion regulations. As abortion regulations continue to evolve, it will be important to analyze the effect of specific word choice in court decisions. What effect does the use of “child” rather than “fetus” or “mother” vs “woman” have on the outcome of a court case? In Casey, the record shows that “woman” was used over ten times more frequently than “mother”, whereas in Roe “mother” was the preferred term(Abrams). Does this trend frame the women forced to make these decisions in a different light? Language choice in these highly public court cases can help to mediate and inflame abortion stigma, and ultimately defines the narrative that is carried out surrounding abortion decisions and the role it will take in public memory.
References and Further Reading
Hull, N.E.H., and Peter Charles Hoffer. Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. University Press of Kansas, 2001.
A comprehensive history of the abortion in law, society, practice, and language.
Johnson, Timothy, et al “Language Matters: Legislation, Medical Practice, and the Classification of Abortion Procedures.” Journal of Medical Humanities, vol. 38, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 365-380, doi: 10.1007/s10912-017-9457-8.
Interesting analysis of the influence of language in abortion debates from the perspective of medical professionals
McCaffrey, Dawn, and Jennifer Keys. “Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-Vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking.” Communication Monographs, vol. 76, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 199-226, doi: 10.1080/03637750902846261.
Analysis of how the role language plays in creating the “frame” of a social movements ideologies and how this is incoporated into the pro-choice and anti-abortion countermovements.
Belluck, Pam. “They Had Miscarriages, and New Abortion Laws Obstructed Treatment.” The New York Times, 29 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/abortion-law-miscarriage.html
News article discussing how abortion debates are impacting necessary medical care – The interplay of medical, ethical, and political terminology and its influence on public opinion
Armitage, Hannah. “Political Language, Uses and Abuses: How the Term ‘Partial Birth’ Changed the Abortion Debate in the United States.” (2017): 1-13
