Abstract
Chapter 1 situates this project within the abortion debate in the USA, focusing on the more recent developments: the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014. The analysis of the pro-life discourse and public policy is based on data collection from multiple fields. The discourse analysis is based on qualitative and quantitative data collected mainly through the analysis of newspaper items and pro-life websites. The analysis of public policy is based on data collected at state and federal levels regarding abortion and abortion-related services. The chapter ends with an introduction of the framework of analysis, focusing on human rights, reproductive rights, and right-wing politics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The data does not include The Washington Post publications between the years 1973 and 1976 due to limited access. The data includes articles published until June 30, 2015.
- 2.
In general, The Washington Post published more items on this issue, and has a higher percentage of items that include references to the pro-life discourse. However, since the analysis of the newspapers is used to better understand the pro-life discourse as it appears in the mainstream media, the data from both newspapers is often presented together.
- 3.
- 4.
As will be further discussed in Chap. 3, these scientific claims are often rejected by many in the scientific community, who argue that research finds that abortion rarely leads to feelings of regret and emotional harm (Charles et al. 2008), and that induced abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer (Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer 2004; Jasen 2005).
- 5.
The Guttmacher Institute is a nonprofit organization which operates primarily to provide research and public education on reproductive health issues in the USA and abroad (Guttmacher Institute Website 2015).
- 6.
- 7.
As is shown in the chapter, until the case of Hobby Lobby, there was very little pro-life discourse concerning the rights of third-party actors in the abortion debate.
- 8.
In her analysis of the pro-life amicus briefs in Webster, Woliver (2013) found that the term “fetus” was never used. Instead, the pro-life discourse used more than 40 different terms to describe the unborn child, including “children in the womb,” “human life before birth,” “minor child,” “unborn grandchildren,” and “those who will be citizens if their life are not ended in the womb” (7). Instead of woman, the briefs mainly used the word “mother.”
References
Beitz CR. The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Benhabib S. The legitimacy of human rights. Daedalus. 2008;137(3):94–104.
Benson Gold R. Lessons from before Roe: will past be prologue? Guttmacher Rep Public Policy. 2003;6(1).
Blank RH. Assisted reproduction and reproductive rights: the case of in vitro fertilization. Polit Life Sci. 1997;16(2):279–88.
Calmes J. Advocates shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to expand message. The New York Times. 2014 July 28.
Carbone J, Cahn N. The power of the pill. Roosevelt Institute. http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/power-pill. 2011.
Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW. Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence. Contraception. 2008;78(6):436–50.
Chilton P, Schäffner C, editors. Politics as text and talk: analytic approaches to political discourse. Vol. 4. John Benjamins Publishing; 2002.
Cohen J. Minimalism about human rights: the most we can hope for? J Polit Philos. 2004;12(2):190–213.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet. 2004;363(9414):1007–16.
Cowan JK, Dembour MB, Wilson RA. Culture and rights: anthropological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
Donnelly J. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2013.
Donnelly J. The relative universality of human rights. Hum Right Q. 2007;29(2):281–306.
Douzinas C. The end of human rights: critical thought at the turn of the century. London: Bloomsbury; 2000.
Dowland S. ‘Family values’ and the formation of a christian right agenda. Church Hist. 2009;78(3):606–31.
Dunn CW, Woodard JD. The conservative tradition in America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003.
Eckholm E. Anti-abortion groups are split on legal tactics. The New York Times. 2011 December 4.
Engelman P. A history of the birth control movement in America. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO; 2011.
Fried MG. Reproductive rights activism in the post-roe era. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):10–4.
Goodhart M. Neither relative nor universal: a response to Donnelly. Hum Right Q. 2008;30(1):183–93.
Habermas J. Remarks on legitimation through human rights. The Modern Schoolman. 1998;75(2):87–100.
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.
Henkin L. The age of rights. New York: Columbia University Press; 1990.
Jasen P. Breast cancer and the politics of abortion in the United State. Med Hist. 2005;49(4):423–44.
King G, Keohane R, Verba S. Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1994.
Kymlicka W. The good, the bad and the intolerable: minority group rights. Dissent. 1996:22–30.
Lauro PW. An abortion rights coalition hopes its campaign will get young women to discuss their choices. The New York Times. 1999 Dec 16.
Leonhardt D, Parlapiano A. Why gun control and abortion are different from gay marriage. The New York Times. 2015 Jun 30.
Libertarian Party. What is the libertarian party? http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party. 2014.
Loonan P. Don’t compromise on abortion. The New York Times. 2003 Jan 15.
Mendus S. Human rights in political theory. Polit Stud. 1995;43(1):10–24.
Morgan LM, Meredith WM. Fetal subjects, feminist positions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1999.
Nisbet R. Conservatives and libertarians: uneasy cousins. Modern Age. 1980;24(1):2–8.
Rubin ER. The abortion controversy: a documentary history. Westport: Greenwood Press; 1994.
Schiffrin D, Tannen D, Hamilton HE. The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Wiley; 2008.
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.
Speed S, Collier JF. Limiting indigenous autonomy in Chiapas, Mexico: the state government’s use of human rights. Hum Right Q. 2000;22(4):877–905.
Stolberg SG. In support of abortion, it’s personal vs political. The New York Times. 2009 Nov 28.
The Guttmacher Institute. About the guttmacher institute. http://www.guttmacher.org/about/index.html. 2015.
Van Dijk TA. Introduction: discourse analysis as a new cross-discipline. Handbook of discourse analysis, vol 1; 1985. p. 1–10.
Woliver LR. Rhetoric and symbols in American abortion politics. In: Githens M, Stetson DMB, editors. Abortion politics: public policy in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Routledge; 2013. p. 5–28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hagel, A.V., Mansbach, D. (2016). The Reproductive Rights Debate in the Age of Human Rights. In: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Human Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53952-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53952-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53951-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53952-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)