Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Fight over Abortion: Fetal Rights in the Post-Roe Era

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reproductive Rights in the Age of Human Rights

  • 796 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 2 focuses on the development of the pro-life fetus-centered strategy between 1973 and 1994, analyzing both the discourse and the public policy introduced during these decades. The discourse, which emphasizes the humanity of the fetus, also using religious and scientific claims, failed to expand the movement’s base of support. In addition, attempts to pass legislation that declares the fetus as a human being—manifested mainly in the hundreds of Human Life Amendment proposals—also were unsuccessful. At the same time, this pro-life strategy influences the concept of human rights, reproductive rights, and right-wing politics. This chapter concludes with an account of reasons for this failure, which led to the development of the women-centered strategy of the 1990s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    While the legalization of abortion in 1973 makes it a clear starting point for the start of this analysis, the decision to end the period in 1994 was based upon the evidence that shows a change in strategy in the mid-1990s, including other scholarly work that uses this timeline (Siegel 2007, 2008a; Siegel and Blustein 2006; Suter 2008). The fetus-centered strategy, however, did not disappear in the mid-1990s. Instead, since the mid-1990s the fetus-centered strategy has been accompanied by an additional strategy, the women-centered strategy, which is the focus of Chap. 3.

  2. 2.

    Discourse items are defined as any item that includes statements made by pro-life activists or leaders, or reports on such statements.

  3. 3.

    Seventy-six percent of The Washington Post’s items and 82 % of The New York Times’ pieces use a fetus-centered approach.

  4. 4.

    The emphasis on universal—rather than religious—arguments for the sanctity of life continues even today. Between 1995 and 2015, the argument that the fetus is a human being appeared 253 times, while in only 64 cases it appeared together with some religious reference.

  5. 5.

    Out of the 152 websites surveyed, 19 websites had such religious affiliation. Of the 19 websites, 8 focused either on women—mainly support centers for women who have had an abortion—or on men, who lost their child as a result of abortion.

  6. 6.

    All quotes used in this section reflect arguments and statements that are often used by pro-life websites, thus highlighting common trends and tendencies rather than unique or extreme cases.

  7. 7.

    The organization Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, for example, also makes a very similar argument, using almost exactly the same language.

  8. 8.

    The assumption that fetal imagery is one way in which the public can recognize the humanity of the fetus also stands at the center of some legislation, mainly laws that require mandatory ultrasound (The Guttmacher Institute 2015e). According to this belief, showing pregnant women this image essentially humanizes their fetus, deterring them from having an abortion. While there is significant controversy regarding the effect of this viewing on a woman’s decision to abort, the most recent data available on the effect of ultrasound on rates of abortion seems to conclude that women who are interested in having an abortion are not influenced by these images (Gatter et al. 2014).

  9. 9.

    The issue of fetal pain is mentioned in some newspaper pieces in the early 1980s, such as in the case of articles in The Washington Post from 1982 to 1984, in which pro-life activists mention the pain that the fetus feels. However, statements from the 1980s regarding fetal pain are rare, and often without mentioning scientific research on the topic. The focus on fetal pain is more clearly evident in legislation, as will be discussed later in this chapter. While antiabortion restrictions based on fetal pain have become common in the last few years (Robertson 2013), the first bill addressing this issue appeared in 1983 (H.R. 203).

  10. 10.

    While this information is difficult to verify, pro-life organizations, such as LifeNews, claim that 9 out of 10 fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted (2013b).

  11. 11.

    The accusations against Sanger have been used often by pro-life activists, as well as by politicians such as Herman Cain in his campaign for presidency (Kessler 2011). The reality is much more complex; Sanger believed in family planning, not based on class or race, and believed in the right of women to express their sexuality while also choosing not to give birth. She was associated at one point with the Eugenics Movement, but before the Holocaust.

  12. 12.

    The uniqueness of FFL among the pro-life movement is evident even today. For example, they argue, “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Abortion masks the unmet needs of women in the workplace, schools, home, and society. In society—the poor, the working poor, women in difficult and often abusive relationships, and students and women in the workplace whose basic needs are ignored: (FFL 2015).” This claim that abortion is a sign that society failed to meet the needs of women is as exceptional today within the pro-life discourse as their arguments were in the 1970s. More on the organization and its role in the development of the women-centered strategy is presented in Chap. 3.

  13. 13.

    This is in no way serves as an exhaustive list of studies on abortion-related policy development.

  14. 14.

    Both refusal clauses and funding restrictions will be examined in greater detail in Chap. 4.

  15. 15.

    The Legal Services Act of 1974, attached to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, provides pro bono legal services for the indigent. The Act prohibits the provision of legal services for use in litigation associated with attempts to procure a nontherapeutic abortion or to compel an individual or institution to perform an abortion (42 U.S.C. 2996 et seq.)

  16. 16.

    One of the reasons why the women-centered strategy is not used together with the human rights discourse is that this strategy is characterized by identifying the subject as lacking autonomy and independence. As a result of these traits, the discourse of this strategy focuses on protecting women rather than recognizing their agency. This approach, which will be discussed at the end of Chap. 3, introduces some challenges to the human rights discourse.

  17. 17.

    This language appeared in multiple pro-life websites, including catholicnews.com, catholiccitizens.org, ncronline.com, and thebostonpilot.com.

  18. 18.

    Despite this relative agreement within the human rights discourse, some researchers argue for the inclusion of the fetus under human right declarations and treaties. Flood (2006) and Joseph (2009), for example, argue that the life of unborn individuals is already protected under these conventions and laws, even if this responsibility is not explicitly stated in these documents. The applicability of these rights to unborn individuals, they argue, is either assumed—thus not requiring explicit references to the preborn—or excluded from the documents because of pressure from some countries.

References

  • Abort 73. Abortion and race. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/. Accessed 24 Feb 2015.

  • Abramowitz A, Saunders K. Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorate. J Polit. 1998;60(3):634–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams G. Abortion: evidence of an issue evolution. Am J Polit Sci. 1997;41(3):718–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahern PV. The wrong label for the abortion issue. The New York Times. 1982 Mar 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth S, Hall T. Abortion politics in congress: strategic incrementalism. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen K. ‘The largest human rights March in the world:’ hundreds of thousands join in D.C. Catholic Citizens. 2015 Jan 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux K. Direct democracy and the link between public opinion and state abortion policy. State Polit Policy Q. 2002;2(4):372–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of Pro-Life Physicians. Are there rare cases when an abortion is justified? http://prolifephysicians.org/app/?p=59. Accessed 24 Feb 2015.

  • Bachiochi E. Coming of age in a culture of choice. In: Bachiochi E, editor. The cost of choice: women evaluate the impact of abortion. San Francisco: Encounter Books; 2004. p. 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkman M, O’Connor RE. Do women legislators matter? Female legislators and state abortion policy. Am Polit Q. 1993;21(1):102–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith FJ. Choice words: a critique of the new pro-life rhetoric. Touchstone. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beitz CR. The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennetts L. Thousands March in capital, seeking abortion ban. New York Times. 1980 Jan 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson Gold R. Lessons from before Roe: will past be prologue? Guttmacher Rep Public Policy. 2003;6(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Black Genocide. Planned parenthood. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2015.

  • Bomberger R. Civil rights gone wrong. http://www.toomanyaborted.com/civil-rights-gone-wrong/. Accessed 5 March 2015.

  • Brady D, Schwartz E. Ideology and interests in congressional voting: the politics of abortion in the U.S. Senate. Public Choice. 1995;84(1–2):25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley GV. The pro-life movement, forty-one years after roe. public discourse, The Whitherspoon Institute. 2014. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/01/11929/. Accessed 12 Feb 2015.

  • Butts C. Pro-abortion tweets piggyback on ferguson tragedy. Onenewsnow. 2014 Apr 26. http://www.onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2014/11/26/pro-abortion-tweets-piggyback-on-ferguson-tragedy. Accessed 30 July 2015.

  • Camobreco J, Barnello M. Democratic responsiveness and policy shock: the case of state abortion policy. State Polit Policy Q. 2008;8(1):48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carabillo T, Meuli J, Csida JB. Feminist chronicles, 1953–1993. Women’s Graphics. 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catholic News Service. March for life set for washington return. Catholic Herald. 2015 Jan 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlotte Lozier Institute. Science supports pain-capability of unborn by 20 weeks. https://www.lozierinstitute.org/science-supports-pain-capability-of-unborn-by-20-weeks/. Accessed 19 Feb 2015a.

  • Charlotte Lozier Institute. A scientific view of when life begins. https://www.lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/. Accessed 19 Feb 2015b.

  • Concerned Women for America. When is it ok to kill a baby? http://www.cwfa.org/. Accessed 14 Jan 2015.

  • Cook EA, Jelen T, Wilcox C. Between two absolutes: public opinion and the politics of abortion. Boulder: Westview Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook RJ, Dickens BM Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform. Hum Right Q. 2003;25(1):1–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper M. Debate on role played by anti-abortion talk. The New York Times. 1995 Jan 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copelon R, Zampas C, Brusie E, Devore J. Human rights begin at birth: international law and the claim of fetal rights. Reprod Health Matters. 2005;13(26):120–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw C. The ‘Protection’ of ‘Woman’: a history of legal attitudes toward women’s workplace freedom. Q J Speech. 1995;81(1):63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devins N. How planned Parenthood v. Casey (pretty much) settled the abortion wars. Yale Law J. 2009;118(7):1318–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt K. Rights plan foes celebrate its difficulties with a gala. The New York Times. 1979 Mar 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond EF. Word wars: games people play about the beginning of life. Focus on the Family Physician (November–December 1992):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowland S. ‘Family values’ and the formation of a christian right agenda. Church Hist. 2009;78(3):606–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuBowski S. Storming wombs and waco: how the anti-abortion and militia movement converge. Front Lines Res. 1996;2(2):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falwell J. Listen America! New York: Bantam Books; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feminists for Life. Question abortion. http://www.feministsforlife.org/question-abortion/. Accessed 12 Mar 2015.

  • Flood PJ Does international law protect the unborn child? Life Learn. 2006;XVI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Focus on the Family. Be a voice 2015. http://www.focusonthefamily.com/social-issues/promos/advocacy/be-a-voice. Accessed 19 Feb 2015.

  • Fox-Genovese E. Wrong turn: how the campaign to liberate women has betrayed the culture of life. Life Learn. 2002;XII:11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman J. Feminism vs. family values: women at the 1992 democratic and republican conventions. Polit Sci Polit. 1993;26(1):21–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried MG. Reproductive rights activism in the post-roe era. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):10–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatter M, Kimport K, Foster DG, Weitz TA, Upadhyay UD. Relationship between ultrasound viewing and proceeding to abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):81–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg RB. Some thoughts on autonomy and equality in relation to Roe v. Wade. North Carolina Law Rev. 1985;63(2):375–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein L. Rockers lead new wave of anti-abortion fight. The New York Times. 1998 Jan 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green DP, Palmquist B, Schickler E. Partisan hearts and minds: political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhouse L, Siegel R. Before (and after) Roe v. Wade: new questions about backlash. Yale Law J. 2011;120:2028–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halva-Neubauer G. Abortion policy in the post-webster age. Publius. 1990;20:27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding S. The book of Jerry Falwell: fundamentalist language and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haule RR. Some reflections on the foundation of human rights: are human rights an alternative to moral values? Max Planck UNYB. 2006;10(1):367–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyer M. Catholic bishops warn against dissent on abortion. The Washington Post. 1985 Oct 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henshaw S, Kost K. Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004. New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbers J. Convention speech stirs foes of abortion. The New York Times. 1979 June 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • High School Students for Life. February event-in-a-box: planned parenthood & genocide. http://highschool.studentsforlife.org/feb-eib/. Accessed 24 Feb 2015.

  • Isaacson W. The battle over abortion. Time. 1981 April 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph R. Human rights and the unborn child. Netherlands: Brill; 2009.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kay KR. Limiting federal court jurisdiction: the unforeseen impact on courts and congress. Judicature. 1981;65:185–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler G. Herman cain’s rewriting of birth-control history. The Washington Post. 2011 Nov 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kihass P. 10,000 antiabortionists attend a protest rally. The New York Times. 1976 July 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klan Parenthood. Homepage. http://www.klannedparenthood.com/. Accessed 22 Mar 2015

  • Klatch R. Women of the new right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klemesurd J. Are mormons against feminism? Not exactly. The New York Times. 1978 May 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klusendrof S. The vanishing pro-life apologist: putting the “life” back into the abortion debate. CRJ. 1999;22(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolta G. Survival of the fetus: a barrier is reached. The New York Times. 1989 Apr 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koop CE, Schaeffer FA. Whatever happened to the human race? Westchester: Crossway; 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreitzer RJ. Politics and morality in state abortion policy. SPPQ. 2015;15(1):41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengers A. Do women’s liberationists play a destructive role? New York Times. 1978 Feb 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Life News. Selfish convenience: why people abort children with Down’s Syndrome. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/selfish-convenience-why-people-abort-children-with-down-syndrome. Accessed 13 Oct 2013b.

  • Lopez KJ. Every life is a gift. National Review Online. 2015 Jan 21. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/396853/every-life-gift-kathryn-jean-lopez. Accessed 30 July 2015.

  • Luker K. Abortion & the politics of motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch M. Abortion’s distinction among immoral acts. The New York Times. 1984 Sept 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier CT. Killing for kindness. Touchstone. 2005;18(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason C. Fetal subjects, feminist positions. In: Morgan LM, Michaels MW, editors. Minority unborn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus R, Churchville V. Antiabortion March nears; protesters arrive by the busload. The Washington Post. 1985 Jan 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathewes-Green F. Doing everything we can: a response to Francis J. Beckwith. Touchstone. 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride DE. Abortion in the United States: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonagh E. The case of the missing frame: abortion as self-defense. Hist Methods. 2007;40(4):187–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meagher Jr RJ. Discourse, framing, and the conservative coalition. Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New York, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medoff M, Dennis C, Stephens K. The impact of party control on the diffusion of parental involvement laws in the U.S. states. SPPQ. 2011;11(3):325–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montanaro AJ. The abortion pill: a new battleground. The Washington Post. 1991 May 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munson ZW. The making of pro-life activists: how social movement mobilization works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Right to Life. Baby rose. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/babyrose/. Accessed 19 Jan 2015a.

  • National Right to Life. When does life begin? http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/wdlb/. Accessed 19 Jan 2015b.

  • Newport F, Moore D, Saad L. Long-term Gallup poll trends: A portrait of American public opinion through the century. 20 Dec 1999. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3400/longterm-gallup-poll-trends-portrait-american-public-opinion.aspx.

  • Norrander B, Wilcox C. Public opinion and policymaking in the states: the case of post-Roe abortion policy. Policy Stud J. 1999;27(4):707–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor K. No neutral ground: abortion politics in an age of absolutes. Boulder: Westview Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penovic T. Human rights and the unborn child (review). Hum Right Q. 2011;33(1):229–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perinatal Hospice. http://www.perinatalhospice.org/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2015.

  • Petchesky R. Fetal images: the power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Fem Stud. 1987;13(2):263–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik J. Realignment: new party coalitions and the nationalization of the south. J Polit. 1987;49(2):347–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Population Research Institute. Stopping genocide: planned parenthood targeting of alaska natives. http://pop.org/content/stopping-genocide-1247. Accessed 24 Feb 2015.

  • Priests for Life. Pro-life meditations on the mysteries of the Holy Rosary. http://www.priestsforlife.org/index.aspx. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.

  • Pro-life preacher denies charge of anti-semitism. The New York Times. 1994 Nov 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Protecting Black Lives. Facts about abortion. http://www.protectingblacklife.org/facts-about-abortion/. Accessed 25 February 2015.

  • Reardon DC. Making abortion rare: a healing strategy for a divided nation. Springfield: Acorn Books; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricker W. Abortion is a human rights issue. Life Site. 1 Mar 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Right to life committee plans drive for anti-abortion amendment. The New York Times. 1980 Jun 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson J. Fetal pain laws: scientific and constitutional controversy. Bill of Health: Petrie-Flow Center. 2013 Jun 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosati KM. Genocide and sanctity of human life. Sanctity of Human Life Guide: Focus on the Family. 2014: 46–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose M. Safe, legal, and available? Abortion politics in the United States. Washington, DC: CQ Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal A. Jane roe has a part in drama of high emotion. The New York Times. 9 April 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin ER. The abortion controversy: a documentary history. Westport: Greenwood Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger C. Seeing and believing: mandatory ultrasound and the path to a protected choice. UCLA Law Rev. 2008;56:351–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider SW. The anti-choice movement: bad news for Jews. Lilith: Independent, Jewish, and Frankly Feminist. 1990: 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz J. Lawmakers spurn curbs on abortion in florida session. The New York Times. 1989 Oct 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science for Unborn Human Life. What has science shown us? http://www.sfuhl.org/g_what_has_science_shown.htm. Accessed 19 Feb 2015.

  • Siegel R. Abortion and the ‘Woman Question’: Forty years of debate. Ind Law J. 2014;89:1365–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel R. Dignity and sexuality: claims on dignity in transnational debates over abortion and same-sex marriage. Int J Const Law. 2012;10:335–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel R. Roe’s roots: the women’s rights claims that engendered Roe. B U Law Rev. 2010;90:1875–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel R. The new politics of abortion: an equality analysis of woman-protective abortion restrictions. U Ill Law Rev, Baum Lecture. 2007:991–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel R, Blustain S. Mommy dearest?: woman-protective antiabortion argument. Am Prospect. 2006 Oct;22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel R. Dignity and the politics of protection: abortion restrictions under Casey/Carhart. Yale Law J. 2008a;117:1694–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stand True. Mission statement. http://www.standtrue.com/mission-statement/. Accessed 22 Feb 2015.

  • Strickland RA, Whicker ML. Political and socioeconomic indicators of state restrictiveness of toward abortion. Policy Stud J. 1992;20(4):598–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust. Who are the survivors? http://www.survivors.la/who-are-the-survivors/. Accessed 21 Mar 2015.

  • Suter S. The ‘repugnance’ lens of Gonzales v Carhart and other theories of reproductive rights: evaluating advanced reproductive technologies. Geo Wash Law Rev. 2008;76(6):1514–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatalovich R, Schier D. The persistence of ideological cleavage in voting on abortion legislation in the house of representatives, 1973–1988. Am Polit Res. 1993;21(1):125–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The abortion debate rages. The Washington Post. 17 April 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Guttmacher Institute. Requirements for Ultrasound. State Policies in Brief. August 1, 2015e.

    Google Scholar 

  • Too Many Aborted. Number one killer. http://www.toomanyaborted.com/numberonekiller/. Accessed 20 Jan 2015

  • Toon P. Christianity and subjective human rights. Touchstone. 1998;11:31–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker P. A view of abortion, with something to offend everybody. The New York Times. 1981 Jun 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace EJ. Pro-Life. http://www.aoh.com/pro-life/. Accessed 8 July 2015.

  • White M, Falwell J. If I should die before I wake. Nashville: Thomas Nelson; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DK. God’s own party: the making of the christian right. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke, JC. Handbook on abortion. Right to Life League. 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willke JC. Life issues institute is celebrating ten years with a new home. Life Issues Connector. 2001 Feb. http://lifeissuesorg/connector/01feb.html. Accessed 20 May 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamin AE, Maine DP. Maternal mortality as a human rights issue: measuring compliance with international treaty obligations. Hum Right Q. 1999;21(3):563–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziebart E. Diverse crowd marches to the drumbeat of ‘life’; from grandmothers to schoolchildren, protesters denounce abortion, pray for amendment. The Washington Post. 1985 Jan 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler M. Women’s rights on the right: the history and stakes of modern pro-life feminism. Berkley J Gender Law Justice. 2013;28:232–68.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin Superior, Superior, WI, USA

    Alisa Von Hagel & Daniela Mansbach

Authors
  1. Alisa Von Hagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Mansbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hagel, A.V., Mansbach, D. (2016). The Fight over Abortion: Fetal Rights in the Post-Roe Era. In: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Human Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53952-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation