The Complex Construction of the Abortion Debate: Anti-Abortion Rights Rhetoric and its Reflections in the Public Sphere

Taryn A. Bunger

A Capstone Project

Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Public Communication

Supervisor: Professor Caty Borum Chattoo April 25, 2012

1

COPYRIGHT© Taryn A. Bunger 2012

2

ABSTRACT The debate over abortion rights in the United States is a characterized by a complex interplay between polarizing rhetoric, media coverage, public opinion and public policy. Guided by the question: “How is extreme anti-choice rhetoric reflected in media coverage, public opinion, and public policy in the abortion debate?,” this capstone assesses the use of extreme anti-abortion rhetoric in the public sphere during the years 2011 and 2012. This research consists of case studies of four prominent anti-abortion rights groups and the corresponding pieces of legislation that they supported or helped enact, a brief media audit of national and regional print news coverage of each piece of legislation, and general public opinion data regarding legal abortion. Results of the study indicated that, while the national and regional news media seem reluctant to employ anti-reproductive rights language and public opinion remains generally consistent, anti-abortion rights frames reinforced by this extreme language are present in the public sphere.

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................5-8 LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................................9-21 History of Landmark Abortion Policy in the United States: A Timeline....................................9-11 The Current State of Abortion Policy.............................................................................................11 Framing and Agenda Setting.....................................................................................................12-15 Semantics and Linguistics as Persuasive Rhetorical Devices...................................................15-17 Convergence of Radical Activist Tactics and Public Policy.....................................................18-21 RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................................................................22-26 Case Studies...............................................................................................................................23-24 Media Audit...............................................................................................................................24-25 Public Opinion Poll Data...........................................................................................................25-26 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................................27-41 Case Studies...............................................................................................................................27-36 Anti-Abortion Rights Lexicon...................................................................................................36-37 Media Audit...............................................................................................................................38-39 Public Opinion Poll Data...........................................................................................................40-41 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................................42-51 Anti-Abortion Rights Lexicon...................................................................................................42-44 Website Content........................................................................................................................45-47 Frames Established.........................................................................................................................47 Media Audit...............................................................................................................................47-48 Public Opinion Poll Data...........................................................................................................48-50 Collective Implications..............................................................................................................50-51 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................52-54 WORKS CITED.....................................................................................................................................55-56 APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................57-83 A: Mississippi Initiative 26 sample articles...............................................................................57-63 B: Ohio House Bill 125 sample articles....................................................................................64-70 C: Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation sample articles.............................................................71-77 D: H.R. 358 sample articles.......................................................................................................78-83

4

INTRODUCTION

Ray Comfort, founder of Living Waters Ministry, begins his narration of the “180” movie with the words “I’m Jewish, and I’m deeply concerned that a generation is forgetting one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race,” as footage of Nazi Germany rolls in the background (Project Heart Changer). For the next 13 minutes and 22 seconds of this 33-minute film, Comfort delivers accounts of the Holocaust interspersed with clips of interviews in which he questions American youths, including a self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi white supremacist and a Holocaust denier, about Hitler and the actions of his regime. The clips depict Comfort asking strings of questions about the kinds of actions his interviewees would take in various situations: Would they kill Hitler if they had the chance? Would they have killed his mother when she was pregnant with Hitler? Would they have killed innocent Jews to save their own lives? The film, however, is not about the Holocaust. The “180” movie is an anti-abortion rights movie produced by the Living Waters Ministry that, through elaborate lines of questioning asked in very specific language, attempts to convince interviewees and viewers of a direct parallel between the Holocaust in Germany and legal abortion in the United States. When his interviewees respond that they would not have murdered Jewish men, women and children to save their own lives, Comfort asks, “So you wouldn’t take a human life, you value human life? How do you feel about abortion (Project Heart Changer)?” At that moment, more than one-third of the way into the film, the images of corpses from the Holocaust turn into images of aborted fetuses, and the topic of the conversation turns. The “conversation,” however, is largely one-directional. Comfort appears to skillfully accomplish what the movie trailer boasts, leading the interviewees to make a “180-degree change” in their views on abortion in seconds, by imposing his own specifically tailored 5

language on the people he interviews. He repeatedly asks his interviewees to finish the sentence “it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, when...” in response to suggestions that there may be circumstances where abortion is appropriate, all while referencing the actions of the Nazi regime. For decades, extreme rhetoric and related communication tactics employed by a small percentage of ultra-conservative activists on the fringe of the abortion debate have been used as mechanisms to advance an agenda of anti-choice sentiment. The “180” movie is a particularly jarring example of how imposing specific words or phrases on this complex issue narrows the context in which the issue can be discussed. By asking his interviewees to answer his question using his language (“it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb, when...”), Ray Comfort is effectively framing the issue of legal abortion. At the end of the film, after again alluding to Nazi Germany by calling legal abortion the “American Holocaust,” Comfort implores the audience to “please, never, ever give your vote to any politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb” (Project Heart Changer). Communication strategy is intricately and inherently connected with the possibility of influencing public opinion and policy, a connection that is particularly important to study in light of the record numbers of state-level abortion restrictions that were introduced and passed in 2011. In the case of reproductive rights in the United States, anti-choice groups that are hesitant to directly attack the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion and has proven difficult to overturn, have defaulted to systematically attacking and limiting reproductive health care options for women by advocating for policy changes restricting access to legal abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1,100 provisions seeking to limit access to reproductive health services were introduced across the United States last year. Of the 135 provisions that were enacted, 92 of them specifically restricted access to legal abortion, in sharp

6

contrast to the standing record of 35 restrictive abortion provisions enacted in 2005 (Guttmacher, 2012). In the polarized fight over abortion and reproductive health, the intersection of persuasive language, media, and public opinion is a complex and shifting communication system that frames issues and impacts public policy. When the persuasive language manufactured to discuss an issue is oversimplified, emotionally charged, purposefully inflammatory, and only accurately representative of the beliefs of a fringe minority, it is identified as extreme rhetoric (Derville, 2005). The foundation of this capstone stems from this language classification. As the policies governing abortion access in the United States become more far-reaching and influenced by conservative social values, it is valuable to consider the use of extreme rhetoric and how this inflammatory language might impact discussion of the abortion issue in the media as well as in the public sphere. This capstone studies the nature of the relationship between media attention, public opinion and policy change under the influence of extreme rhetoric, through the lens of the abortion debate in the United States in 2011 and 2012. Accordingly, this capstone presents an in-depth case study exploration of four prominent antiabortion rights organizations with connections to recent policy provisions restricting access to abortion. The organizations and corresponding policy debates are: - Personhood USA and the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment” - National Right to Life and the “Ohio Heartbeat Bill” - Operation Rescue and Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation - Family Research Council and the “Protect Life Act” This capstone is guided by the question: How is extreme anti-choice rhetoric reflected in media coverage, public opinion and public policy in the present-day abortion debate? This paper begins with a review of the literature about the history of the abortion debate in the United States, framing and agenda setting, semantics and linguistics as persuasive

7

rhetorical devices and the convergence of radical activist tactics with public policy. Next, the project will present the fundamental tenets of the four anti-choice organizations through a textual analysis of campaign materials and analysis of characteristics of the organizations’ alternate communication tactics. Each organization is discussed within the complex context of the relevant legislation that it supported or helped to enact, news media attention garnered by that legislation, and public opinion poll data concerning abortion and other public health services. This project does not attempt to prove causation between any of the elements of extreme rhetoric, media attention and public opinion, but instead seeks to gain insight into the intricate system created by the interplay of these elements and their manifestation in public policy. Through the case studies and discussion of the apparent impact of extreme rhetoric, this project will provide insight into the dramatic success of anti-choice provisions restricting abortion access in 2011.

8

LITERATURE REVIEW History of Landmark Abortion Policy in the United States: A Timeline 1962: States have varied abortion policies. Depending on location, abortion is illegal under all circumstances, illegal except in cases endangering the life or welfare of the woman, or otherwise strictly regulated. 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut: The Supreme Court prevents states from prohibiting birth control services to married couples. The ruling sets the precedent for a constitutional right to privacy. 1970-1973: New York, California, Hawaii, and Alaska legalize induced abortion as determined necessary by a woman and her physician. Multiple other states liberalize abortion regulations to legalize the procedure in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal deformity, or health risk to the woman. 1973: Roe v. Wade: Supreme Court rules that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy, thereby legalizing abortion in all 50 states. States can only prohibit abortion at the point of fetal viability, and then only if continuing the pregnancy poses no significant risk to the woman’s health. In the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court overturned a Georgia law requiring a woman seeking an abortion to obtain approval from multiple physicians. 1976: Planned Parenthood v. Danforth: Supreme Court rules that a woman does not require the consent of her partner to obtain an abortion. 1976: The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds to cover abortions for low-income women. The Hyde Amendment is revised in 1977 to include exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the health of the woman. In 1980 the Supreme Court case Harris v. McRae upholds the original amendment. 1989: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: Supreme Court upholds a Missouri law prohibiting abortion preformed by public employees and in public hospitals. 1990: Hodgson v. Minnesota: Supreme Court rules against a Minnesota parental consent law, requiring an option for judicial bypass in the event that notifying the parents will negatively impact the health or wellbeing of the minor. 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Supreme Court now allows states to regulate abortion before the last trimester by imposing requirements such as pre-abortion counseling and waiting periods between counseling and receiving an abortion. The court rules that these requirements must not place an undue burden on the woman seeking abortion services.

9

1994: The Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) prohibits violent or threatening obstruction of abortion clinics and seeks to impose penalties on those in violation. 2000: Stenberg v. Carhart: Supreme Court finds the Nebraskan ban on “partial-birth abortion,” unconstitutional, invalidating similar laws in 30 additional states. 2003: President Bush signs the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, outlawing the late-term abortion procedure of intact dilation and extraction. The National Abortion Federation challenges the ban. In 2007 the ban, which does not allow exceptions regarding the health of the woman, is upheld by the Supreme Court. 2011: Record numbers of abortion restrictions are enacted, with 92 provisions restricting access to abortion services in 24 states. (Guttmacher Institute, 2012; Masci, 2008; National Abortion Federation)

The landmark 1973 United States Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade legalized elective abortion in every state. The ruling affirmed a lower court decision that declared the Texas law prohibiting abortion in all cases except those that risked the life of the mother unconstitutional, citing a right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights (Masci, 2008). Even though Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion, the decision recognized that the states may have an interest in the developing fetus, and established the trimester framework of pregnancy to determine at what points states can legally restrict access to elective procedures (Masci, 2008). According to the Pew Forum, during the first trimester the state “can only require basic health safeguards and cannot limit access to abortion,” during the second trimester the state “can only regulate abortion to protect the health of the mother” and during the third trimester the state “can restrict or even ban abortion as long as [the] procedure [is] still allowed when [the] mother’s life or health is at risk” (Masci, 2008). The leeway for the states to regulate abortion allowed by Roe v. Wade is the foundation of most anti-abortion rights strategy today. Anti-abortion rights activists are hesitant to directly

10

challenge the Roe decision because they fear that a failed attempt could backfire by reaffirming the decision or even establishing stricter pro-abortion rights guidelines. In lieu of a full repeal, state legislatures chip away at abortion access by placing cumbersome restrictions and regulations on every aspect of the procedure. As a result, the key battlegrounds of the abortion wars are concerned with enacting provisions on a state-by-state basis that make it as difficult as possible to obtain or provide a legal abortion.

The Current State of Abortion Policy According to an article produced by the Guttmacher Institute, 2011 saw a sharp increase in provisions seeking to restrict abortion access. The article asserts that 68 percent of provisions concerning reproductive health and rights sought to impose limitations or restrictions on access to abortion, compared to 26 percent in 2010 (Guttmacher, 2012). Additionally, “the 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005” (Guttmacher, 2012). The types of restrictions vary, and include comprehensive abortion bans such as the defeated “personhood” ballot initiative in Mississippi, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Provider – or “TRAP” – laws that aim to close clinics by subjecting them to overly stringent and inhibiting state regulations, bans on abortions after 20 weeks, mandatory waiting periods of up to 72 hours between mandatory pre-abortion counseling and undergoing the procedure, mandatory ultrasounds that are both expensive and medically unnecessary, restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions, and proposed restrictions concerning the use of medicated abortion (Guttmacher, 2012).

11

Framing and Agenda Setting The communications theories of agenda setting and framing are integral aspects of the decades-long abortion debate, both in the broad positional definitions of each side and in the succinct semantic efforts of those opposing campaigns. Scheufele and Tewksbury differentiate between agenda setting and framing in their 2007 journal article “Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” According to the authors, agenda setting is primarily concerned with the concept that the amount of media coverage dedicated to an issue correlates to the saliency of that issue in the minds of the public. Notably, agenda setting does not invoke the treatment of an issue by the media as the force that impacts audiences. In contrast, the theory of agenda setting disregards any opinion expressed either through frames or outright commentary: “it is not information about the issue that has the effect; it is the fact that the issue has received a certain amount of processing time and attention that carries the effect” (Sheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). The question of how media treatment impacts audience perception of an issue is addressed by the theory of framing. The principles of framing assume that the way in which the media describes or portrays an issue can influence the opinions of viewers because frames serve to reduce the complexity of an issue by activating pre-existing schemas that guide opinion and decision making (Sheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). The scholars write that “basic framing approach assumes that the locus of effect lies within the description of an issue or the label used in news coverage about the issue. It is the underlying interpretive schemas that have been made applicable to the issue that are the central effect of a frame” (Sheufele & Tewksbury 2007). The difference between agenda setting and framing, therefore, is the notion that agenda setting attributes audience impact to sheer presence and volume of media coverage of a given issue,

12

while framing attributes audience impact to how a given issue is characterized by news media reports. Agenda setting determines whether or not information about an issue is accessible to the public, whereas framing influences the ways in which the public interprets an issue based on the modes of presentation. While Sheufele and Tewksbury primarily address framing as a function of the news media, the same theory is also directly applied by practitioners on both sides of the abortion debate. Frames are utilized by activist organizations to shape the opinions of three key audiences: the public, the media, and elected officials (Gerrity, 2010). Using the controversy surrounding the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act as context, Jessica Gerrity argues that interest groups use frames to influence how their three crucial audiences perceive and respond to their issues. Gerrity describes how the anti-choice movement was able to pass the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, which criminalized the safest and most medically sound method of later-term abortion, by invoking a “brutality frame” to sway public opinion in its favor (Gerrity, 2010). According to Gerrity, the “brutality frame” utilized by the network of anti-choice organizations emphasized and consistently reiterated graphic descriptions of later-term abortions, in which the fetus is more developmentally advanced at the point of termination than in earlier term abortions. Perhaps the most successful element of the “brutality frame” was the ease with which anti-choice activists were able to almost completely replace the medical term for this procedure, “intact dilation and extraction,” with the inflammatory phrase, “partial-birth abortion.” The introduction of this phrase took pro-choice activists by surprise, and they fell into the trap of engaging in discussion about later-term terminations as partial-birth abortion (Gerrity, 2010). When the pro-choice movement realized its mistake, it tried to counter-frame later-term abortions in terms of the woman’s health, referring to the procedure as “tragic and rare” but

13

occasionally medically necessary (Gerrity, 2010). Pro-choice practitioners were too late to contradict the capacity of the “brutality frame” to invoke images of fully developed, viable fetuses and live births. The inability of the pro-choice movement to defeat anti-choice abortion frames caused it to lose significant support from the public, the media, and elected officials, contributing to the ban on the intact dilation and extraction method. The success of the graphic and emotional “brutality frame” can be informed by discussion of the effectiveness of episodic versus thematic frames. A study by Kimberly Gross testing the difference in emotional response to and persuasiveness of these two types of frames concluded that invoking powerful emotions can increase the impact of carefully framed messages (Gross, 2008). Gross recognizes a frame as an organizational mechanism that helps audiences categorize and interpret messages, and then elaborates on the distinction between two types: episodic and thematic frames. Episodic frames, she writes, “present an issue by offering a specific example, case study, or event oriented report,” while thematic frames “place issues into a broader context” (Gross, 2008). Studying emotional responses to issues by alternating between an episodic and a thematic frame of the same content resulted in the conclusion that episodic frames are most likely to produce an emotional response, and that if the emotions invoked are strong enough, action may be taken and policy change incurred (Gross, 2008). While Gross does not use abortion as a case study, her work is directly applicable to the abortion debate. Abortion, for many activists on both sides of the issue, is an intensely emotional topic, and both the anti and pro-choice movements have historically used episodic frames to activate these powerful emotions. Opponents of abortion rights personify the contents of a woman’s uterus at all stages of development, beginning with the immediate fertilization of the egg preceding implantation in the uterine wall, as a “baby” or “unborn child,” even referring

14

to abortion as murder or infanticide. A South Dakota law forces doctors to inform women seeking abortions that doing so will be “terminating the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” (Joffe, 2009). Some stunts have even gone as far as assigning a guardian to represent the “unborn” in broad court cases and having a fetus “testify” via a pregnant woman receiving an ultrasound during legislative proceedings. Personifying the fetus creates an episodic frame and invokes powerful emotions in anti-choice activists. Pro-choice activists also use episodic frames, focusing largely on the health, autonomy, and freedom to choose of the pregnant woman, or telling gruesome accounts of back-alley abortions gone horribly wrong. Gross writes that “a story that generates incredible anger...or that generates incredible sympathy and pity for an individual’s plight can facilitate persuasive claims on behalf of policy change.” Indeed, this emotional framework is prevalent in the semantics and language utilized by activists and organizations on both sides of the abortion debate.

Semantics and Linguistics as Persuasive Rhetorical Devices As Jessica Gerrity indicates in her discussion of the “brutality frame” and the success of the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act, pro-choice activists are often at a disadvantage when it comes to invoking graphic and wrenching frames on the same scale as their opponents. Anti-choice activists and organizations have effectively framed their platform as the absolute “moral” choice, and do not hesitate to reinforce this frame by personifying the fetus as a vulnerable innocent, vilifying the physicians who perform abortions, and characterizing women seeking abortions as irresponsible, selfish, promiscuous, or murderous. Often, the best the pro-choice movement can do is attempt to counter-frame abortion as clinical or medicinal in an attempt to remove the intensely emotional element attached to morality and the black-and-white perception of right and

15

wrong. This creates a new problem however, which is that denying one set of morals is not as persuasive as passionately advocating for another. George Lakoff writes that framing and advocating for their own morals is exactly what progressive activists must do if they hope to succeed in counteracting the conservative framework. According to Lakoff, conservatives have significantly advanced their own agendas in the last few decades because they frame each issue in the context of their overarching principle of traditional morality. In doing so, conservatives have created a strong sense of identity that governs which issues they support and what policy decisions they make. This sense of identity is crucial because it acts as a frame and helps its subscribers interpret the world around them; Lakoff asserts that it cannot be assumed people only act in their own self-interest, but that they act in keeping with how they identify themselves (Lakoff, 2004). In fact, this was a point of contention as the New Right and Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” entered the abortion debate scene in the 1980s, creating a rift between the original “right to life” advocates and those who took up the cause “more because it offended their conservative social vision than because it killed individual human beings” (Gorney, 1998). In his instructions to progressive activists, Lakoff addresses the need to identify a value, create a corresponding frame that invokes the desired response, and pay meticulous attention to the language used to communicate the position. He warns that an activist’s language must be unique to his or her own frame, writing: “Do not use their language. Their language picks out a frame – and it won’t be the frame you want” (Lakoff, 2004). This was precisely the problem that pro-choice advocates faced trying to defend later-term abortions; they unwittingly adopted the inflammatory anti-choice phrase “partial-birth abortion,” and in doing so compromised their ability to reframe the issue to advance their own moral framework.

16

The example Lakoff uses to demonstrate how carefully selected words invoke larger, established frames is another conservative-coined phrase: “tax relief.” “Think of the framing for ‘relief.’ For there to be relief, there must be affliction, an afflicted party, and a reliever who removes the affliction and is therefore a hero. And if people try to stop the hero, those people are villains for trying to prevent relief (Lakoff, 2004).” Lakoff elaborates that the frame of affliction invoked by the one word, “relief,” when used in conjunction with a discussion on taxation, implies that taxes are an affliction, a burden. The new frame that the public accesses, consciously or not, is that lowering taxes removes the burden, and he who lowers taxes is therefore heroic. Frank Luntz, often described as Lakoff’s conservative counterpart, has his own guidelines for creating what he calls “words that work.” Luntz’s mantra, “it’s not what you say, it’s what people hear” implies the effectiveness of framing while focusing very tightly on the precision of each individual word and phrase. Luntz presents ten guiding principles for creating effective messages: simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, sound, aspiration, visualization, questioning, and context (Luntz, 2007). Applied to the lexicon of the abortion debate, it is fairly easy to see the efficacy of this messaging strategy, particularly in the emotionally charged, over-simplified, and inflammatory rhetoric often employed by anti-choice organizations and activists.

17

Convergence of Radical Activist Tactics and Public Policy Radical activist tactics beyond polarizing frames are tangled throughout the abortion debates. Presently, psalm-bearing pamphlets, picketers hoisting graphic images of aborted fetuses, “sidewalk counselors,” and crisis pregnancy centers are so common that they are almost expected, or mainstream, and few actions short of murdering an abortion provider or bombing a clinic draw media attention as “radical” behavior. Tiffany Derville defines a radical activist organization more broadly, in terms of actions and behaviors, as people who “work outside of the system to express their objections, influence social goals, or both through means such as agitative communication with key organizations that contribute to the phenomenon they oppose,” engaging in “vitriolic rhetoric, disruptive image events, actions that provoke violent backlashes, unreasonable demands, pressure against targets’ accomplices, harassment, and sabotage” (Derville, 2005). Before the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade (1973) that a woman’s right to privacy under the United States Constitution provided her the fundamental right to access abortion services, groups of concerned physicians, clergy, and activists conspired all over the country to safely provide abortions to women with unwanted or unsafe pregnancies (Gorney, 1998). Given that performing an abortion and even counseling a women about where she could receive one were illegal, the men and women who provided these services certainly engaged in radical activist tactics. In the years post-Roe, the focus of abortion-related radicalism shifted, as one might expect, to the anti-choice movement which, since 1973, has found itself on the wrong side of the status quo. As the years progressed and it became clear that overturning the decision that

18

legalized abortion in every state was not going to be easy, frustration mounted, factions formed, and the frequency and intensity of anti-choice protests increased (Gorney, 1998). Two of the most prevalent and salient radical anti-abortion tactics are arguably those that Derville describes as “vitriolic rhetoric” and “disruptive image events (Derville, 2005).” As indicated in the discussion on framing, the anti-choice lexicon employs inflammatory and often misleading language that supports multiple facets of the anti-abortion platform. Abortion providers are “baby killers” whose comprehensive reproductive health services centers are “abortion mills” engaging in “infanticide.” Women seeking abortions are “sluts” or “whores” whose pregnancies should be their punishment for promiscuity. Anti-choice groups are also infamous for the use of graphic, disruptive images, often depicting rare late-term abortions. Cynthia Gorney’s precisely-detailed account of the abortion debates from the 1960s to the 1990s recounts, among others, the story of St. Louis Reproductive Health Services founder Judy Widdicombe. Judy and her colleagues recognized the significant advantage the anti-choice movement has in their use of vitriolic rhetoric and disruptive image events. Judy reflects, in one paraphrased instance, that “it seemed so futile, trying to win back the image wars...the Antis had the pictures, the Antis had the don’t-bother-me-with-the-realworld moral simplicity, the Antis even had the language” (Gorney, 1998). They have, as Frank Luntz would probably agree, messaging that is at the very least simple, brief, consistent, novel, aspirational, visual, and powerful within its context, making it as effective as it is radical. Cynthia Gorney also follows the story of St. Louis right-to-lifer Sam Lee and his development from activist to lobbyist. Through Sam, the reader watches the progression from silent, peaceful protests of conscientious objectors outside abortion clinics to trespasses, resisting

19

police interference, vandalism, multiple arrests, restraining orders, kidnappings, and violence (Gorney, 1998). While the extent of fanaticism certainly varied, the case of Sam Lee is a telling example of how, while some extreme activists remained in the field or on the fringe, radical activists eased their way from the protest sites to the legislative halls. Sam Lee, who began his activist career as a young man getting arrested outside St. Louis abortion clinics, and who staunchly believed that no circumstances ever justified termination of a pregnancy, grew up to co-author the bill that ascended to Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, arguably the closest any legislation has come to overturning the precedent set by Roe v. Wade (Gorney, 1998). As Gorney’s extensive history describes, policy proposals seeking to completely outlaw all abortion, as well as those seeking to restrict access to the point of effectively prohibiting abortions have been infiltrating state houses and all levels of the judiciary since moments after the Roe decision. Still, the record number of extremely restrictive abortion and reproductive health care policies introduced and enacted in 2011 indicate an even greater convergence of radical activist tactics and public policy.

This dramatic upswing in restrictive abortion provisions indicates a radical assault on the constitutional right of women, as ruled by Roe v. Wade in 1973, to obtain a legal abortion, and a grave violation of the “undue burden” precedent set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. The current political climate is deeply polarized, the battle for the 2012 GOP nomination is leading crippling ultra-conservatism into the limelight, and extreme anti-choice tenets such as the notion that life begins at fertilization are creeping toward becoming legitimate laws. Based on the context of the theory and history detailed in the literature review, and including an analysis of

20

current framing, tactics, and language, this capstone now progresses to consider the complex convergence of extreme rhetoric and tactics, media coverage, and public opinion in four of the latest high-profile provisions from the public policy fronts in the abortion war.

21

RESEARCH METHODS

This project addresses the complex and interwoven communication system of media attention, public opinion and policy change in the 2011-2012 abortion debate through case studies of four prominent anti-abortion rights organizations with connections to recent policy provisions designed to restrict access to abortion. The research question that forms the case studies is: How is extreme anti-choice rhetoric reflected in media coverage, public opinion and public policy in the abortion debate in the years 2011 and 2012? The organizations and corresponding policy debates are: - Personhood USA and Mississippi Initiative 26, commonly known as the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment” - National Right to Life and Ohio House Bill 125, commonly known as the “Ohio Heartbeat Bill” - Operation Rescue and Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation “TRAP” laws - Family Research Council and H.R. 358, commonly know as the “Protect Life Act” Each of these pieces of legislation were chosen because they characterize the strategy of chipping away at abortion access as a means of undermining legal abortion as established by Roe v. Wade without directly challenging the ruling in court. The three statewide initiatives are representative of battles that began being waged against legal abortion at the state level immediately after the Roe decision, and continue to limit abortion rights by making it difficult or impossible for women to obtain the medical procedures allowed them by current United States law. H.R. 358 is the lone federal initiative in this collection of research, but plays the same role as the statewide initiatives in that it threatens access to legal abortion without attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade. In addition to case studies of each organization, its communication strategies and rhetorical devices and its corresponding legislation, this project analyzes media coverage at the 22

national and state levels and public opinion poll data concerning Americans’ attitudes toward abortion from May 2006 to July 2011.

Case Studies The foundation for each case study is a textual analysis of materials produced or utilized directly by each organization, including both official website written content and official website visual content. Within each of these categories, all materials were assessed for the presence of language intended to frame the abortion debate, the results of which forms the lexicon of antireproductive rights rhetoric. This project then used the textual analysis of organizational materials to construct a list of key words or phrases used to frame the abortion debate from an anti-abortion rights perspective. The list of keys words and phrases informed the textual analysis of news articles located through the media audit. Specific details about each category of examined materials for each organization are presented below: Official website written content Information about the history, ideology, mission, beliefs, actions, members, personnel or additional topics of each organization written by that organization or written by an affiliate on behalf of that organization. These materials depict each organization according to the exact image it desires to portray and provides a direct account of how that organization frames its key beliefs and issues. This textual analysis considered available press releases produced by the organization, and did not consider reposts of news stories written by separate parties.

23

Official website visual content Includes available videos, images and graphics such as an official logo and pictures produced by the organization or promoted on the organization’s official website.

Media Audit This project examines media coverage of a specific anti-reproductive rights provision for each of the four organizations studied. This project searched for articles in two national print news publications and one local state print news publication for each provision. Each of the articles was studied using textual analysis guided by the project’s primary research question and informed by the rhetoric employed by the organizations themselves. 1) Mississippi Initiative 26, commonly known as the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment” 2) Ohio House Bill 125, commonly known as the “Ohio Heartbeat Bill” 3) Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation Laws 4) H.R. 358, commonly known as the “Protect Life Act” Each brief survey of media related to these provisions included LexisNexis searches of the archives of The New York Times and The Washington Times. These two papers were chosen because they represent the liberal and conservative facets, respectively, of national traditional print news (Groseclose & Milyo, 2005). Articles within the top fifteen returned search results were selected for textual analysis. Relevance was determined according to the following criteria: - Relevant articles focused a significant portion of coverage on the selected provision. Articles that only briefly mentioned or did not elaborate on the provision were not considered relevant. - Relevant articles were written and published in the years 2011 and 2012.

24

In addition to retrieving articles from two national print news publications, the researcher retrieved relevant articles, employing the same selection process and criteria, from one local print news publication per provision. Local papers whose articles were not available via the LexisNexis database were sourced from the official websites of those papers. The four local publications are: 1) The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal - MS 26 2) The Columbus Dispatch - H.B. 125 3) The Topeka Capital Journal - Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation Laws 4) The Washington Post - H.R. 358 The Washington Post was selected to serve as the local paper for H.R. 358 because it is a federal bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives, located in Washington, D.C. The number of articles sourced from each publication varies per provision based on coverage availability.

Public Opinion Poll Data This project examined public opinion poll data concerning general abortion and abortion rights issues conducted by Gallup from the years 2006-2011. This timeframe was selected because it allows the opportunity to follow trends in public opinion on several aspects of the abortion issue over the course of five recent years. These years also include dramatic shifts in the leadership of the country, specifically the transition from a Republican president to a Democrat with the 2008 election of President Barak Obama, and the 2010 midterm elections that sweepingly ousted Democratic candidates, earning Republicans the majority in the United States House of Representatives and more representation in the United States Senate and state-level

25

leadership. “General” abortion and abortion-rights questions are those which simply address issues such as the moral or legal preference of abortion or the conditions under which the procedure should be available, and do not address specific proposed provisions. In addition to analyzing potential shifts in the general attitudes Americans have toward abortion between 2006 and 2011, this project analyzed public opinion poll data, where available, concerning support for examples of proposed restrictions. This data, collected by Gallup in 2011, asks participants about the types of restrictions being proposed and implemented across the country, but does not reference specific legislation or proposals.

26

RESULTS Case Studies Personhood USA Personhood USA is Christian organization based in Colorado actively working to pass amendments to state constitutions declaring that a fertilized egg qualifies as a legal human being from the moment of conception (Personhood USA). The group has chapters in various states including Colorado, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma and Florida, which all work to advance the Personhood USA mission of eliminating abortion access via “personhood” amendments and ultimately garner enough state support to similarly amend the United States constitution. According to the Personhood USA website, the mission of the organization is to “glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life that all innocent human lives are protected by love and law,” and to serve “the pro-life community by assisting local groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all innocent humans” (Personhood USA). Mississippi Initiative 26 In 2011, a Personhood USA initiative in Mississippi made headlines as it was expected to become the first legislation of its kind to pass a vote and be enacted into law. Mississippi Initiative 26, commonly called the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment,” would have defined human life as legally beginning at the moment of conception, effectively outlawing abortion procedures at all stages of pregnancy (“Elections: Initiatives”). The proposed amendment did not cite exceptions in cases where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, where the fetus was severely deformed or unlikely to survive birth or where the life or health of the mother would

27

have been at risk from carrying the pregnancy to term (“Elections: Initiatives”). The amendment, which was subject to popular vote, ultimately failed to pass. Website Content The Personhood USA website contains an overview of the organization’s mission and definitions of the term “personhood” and the personhood movement. Various website text and videos utilize specific key words and phrases associated with advancing the anti-abortion rights agenda. For example, Personhood USA uses the phrases “pre-born” or “unborn child” to describe a fetus from the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell. “Pro-abort” is a term used to describe advocates for abortion rights, whereas “pro-life” describes opponents of abortion rights. More inflammatory language is found in the comparison of legal abortion in the United States to slavery and the struggles of African Americans, including a video titled “A Day to Advance!” describing the personhood movement as “the new civil rights movement of the 21st century” (Personhood USA). Another video, “For the Record,” found on the Personhood USA website refers to legal abortion as the “American Holocaust” (Personhood USA). Also notable is the recurring invocation of Christianity throughout the Personhood USA mission and rhetorical materials. The website states that “Personhood USA desire to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and law,” and features a video encouraging viewers to “bring the church to the streets” (Personhood USA). The obvious Christian affiliation is affirmed by the assertion that “Personhood USA is a 501(c)(4) Christian ministry that welcomes those who believe in the Godgiven right to life” (Personhood USA). The Personhood USA logo is pictured below:

28

The above graphic, the Personhood USA logo, is one of the few images displayed on the Personhood USA website. Other images include pictures of the Republican presidential primary candidates who endorsed the mission of the organization, pictures of very young children or fetuses in the womb and pictures from Personhood USA events. Several videos are present on the page, most of which focus primarily on text and show few images and no graphic content.

National Right to Life Committee The National Right to Life Committee is the national organizing entity that governs the actions of approximately 3,000 chapters in all 50 states (National Right to Life Committee). The organization was founded in response to fractured state efforts to obscure or reverse legal abortion access allowed by Roe v. Wade and establish a cohesive national effort that would advance one set of principles in communities all over the country (National Right to Life Committee). The National Right to Life Committee cites its ultimate goal is “to restore legal protection to innocent human life,” which they work to advance by lobbying for legislative reforms at both the state and national level.

29

Ohio House Bill 125 The National Right to Life Committee has a complicated history with Ohio House Bill 125, also known as the Ohio Heartbeat Bill. Ohio House Bill 125 would have criminalized abortions performed after a fetal heartbeat could be medically detected, usually around 6-8 weeks into pregnancy (Ohio General Assembly). The bill would have restricted access to legal abortion in Ohio by decreasing the window of time between when a woman discovers she is pregnant, which can occur several weeks after conception, and when she can obtain an abortion. The Heartbeat Bill passed in the Ohio House of Representatives, and is stalled in the Senate at the time of this writing. The National Right to Life Committee and dozens of its statewide and local chapters initially signed on in support of House Bill 125. Eventually, the organization distanced itself from the legislation despite the endorsement of founder and former president Dr. John Wilke, believing that it is restrictive enough to not have a realistic chance of success in the Senate. Website Content The National Right to Life Committee website primarily consists of links to articles or fact sheets and pamphlets related to the core issues tackled by the organization. These materials use the terms “pro-life” and “pro-abortion” to refer to anti-abortions rights advocates and abortion-rights advocates, respectively (National Right to Life Committee). Fetuses at all stages of development are frequently referred to as “unborn children” or “developing” children, although the word “fetus” does appear repeatedly throughout the various materials (National Right to Life Committee). The National Right to Life Committee calls Planned Parenthood, a women’s health clinic that offers a variety of reproductive health services including abortion at some facilities, “America’s top abortion chain,” and refers to legal abortion as “infanticide”

30

(National Right to Life Committee). The National Right to Life Committee also utilizes the controversial term “partial-birth abortion” to describe legal abortions that occur in the later stages of pregnancy. One notable focus of the National Right to Life Committee website materials is refuting common pro-abortion rights arguments. A fact sheet entitled “Reasons for Abortion” argues that not considering oneself well enough equipped for parenthood is an unacceptable reason to have an abortion because: “A lot of people, even couples who have been married for years, find the prospect of raising and caring for a child intimidating. Yet, the baby comes, and somehow the bills get paid, the parental instincts kick in, and the child thrives” (National Right to Life Committee). Another pamphlet, titled “Hard Cases” refutes the need for abortion in cases of rape or incest, reading: “Should an innocent baby be killed for the crime of his father” (National Right to Life Committee)? The National Right to Life Committee logo appears below:

The website focuses almost exclusively on text, rarely employing images apart from the logo and occasional, non-graphic images. Operation Rescue Operation Rescue is a national Christian activist organization presently based in Kansas after the merger of several state-level affiliated organizations. In recent years, the group has refocused efforts from grassroots arrests and protests and picketing abortion clinics to

31

prosecuting doctors and closing abortion clinics by uncovering alleged legal transgressions (Operation Rescue). The organization still maintains some of its original strategy in the form of “Truth Trucks” bearing graphic images of aborted fetuses that travel around the country on behalf of Operation Rescue (Operation Rescue). Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation In 2002 Operation Rescue relocated its headquarters to Wichita, Kansas, to focus its efforts on restricting access to abortion, particularly in the later stages of pregnancy, by filing suits and organizing grassroots campaigns against Kansas abortion practitioners (Operation Rescue). Despite operating nationally, Operation Rescue has been particularly vocal in its support of a litany of restrictive “TRAP” laws introduced and passed in Kansas to limit access to legal abortion. “TRAP” – or “targeted regulation of abortion providers” – laws impose severe or specific regulations on abortion clinics that other medical providers are not subject to, in an effort to effectively restrict access to those clinics and abortion procedures (NARAL Pro-Choice America). The most recent set of TRAP laws passed in Kansas would have left two of the state’s three abortion providers without licenses, and was subsequently blocked by a federal judge until the resolution of a lawsuit challenging the legislation is complete. Website Content Operation Rescue’s website is a compilation of detailed organizational history, press releases and information regarding abortion from the perspective of the group. The various rhetorical materials employ some key words and phrases similar to the other organizations studied, such as “pro-life” and “pre-born” children (Operation Rescue). Much of the language, however, is markedly more inflammatory, as Operation Rescue refers to abortion as the “killing of innocent children,” and asserts that clinics terminating pregnancies are “abortion mills”

32

working to produce “dead babies.” Much of the language utilized by Operation Rescue characterizes legal abortion as a type of corrupt business, maintaining that abortion providers are in the “child-killing business,” and are a part of the “abortion industry” or even the “abortion cartel” (Operation Rescue). Operation Rescue also invokes Christianity, claiming that the organization is “one of the leading pro-life Christian activist organizations in the nation” (Operation Rescue). The Operation Rescue logo is pictured below:

This image is one of many populating the Operation Rescue website. Unlike the other organizations researched, Operation Rescue employs graphic images of aborted fetuses under the caption “Baby Pictures.” These pictures make up the entirety of the “What Is Abortion” section of the website, excluding any text. The website also features pictures of rallies, protests and staff members. Despite the presence of inflammatory language and graphic images, the Operation Rescue website makes a concerted effort to distance itself from the perceived “radical” roots of the organization and its estranged founder Randall Terry. Website content heralds current 33

president Troy Newman as the “savior” of Operation Rescue and contains disclaimers asserting that Terry is not affiliated with the organization and that: “It should be noted that numerous independent blog sites found on the Internet have no accountability and should not be trusted as a source of accurate information about Operation Rescue” (Operation Rescue).

The Family Research Council The Family Research Council positions itself as an advocacy organization focused on defending the principles of traditional marriage and conservative family values through the institution or defense of corresponding legislation (Family Research Council). Based in Washington, D.C., the Family Research Council defines its values according to the belief that “God is the author of life, liberty, and the family” and promoting “the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society” (Family Research Council). Legal abortion is one of many issues that the Family Research Council deems offensive to traditional Judeo-Christian values, in addition to marriage equality, pre-marital sex and pregnancy and religious liberty. H.R. 358 The Family Research Council is vocal in its support of the one federal bill discussed in this capstone, H.R. 358, also known as the “Protect Life Act.” The bill, which passed in the United States House of Representatives in October 2011, makes it illegal to purchase any health insurance plan that includes abortion services under the Affordable Care Act, regardless of whether or not the purchaser utilizes those services (“H.r. 358”). Proponents of the bill argue that this ensures no federal money is spent on abortions, although such spending was already illegal. H.R. 358 also prohibits the government from mandating that doctors or hospitals provide

34

abortions, even in the event of a medical emergency, if that doctor or hospital conscientiously objects to the procedure (“H.r. 358”). Website Content The majority of abortion-related information found on the Family Research Council website (it is one of the many social issues on which the group focuses) is found linked to articles, fact sheets, or pamphlets, many of which are written by affiliates of the organization (Family Research Council). These materials contain most of the anti-abortion rights words and phrases presented previously, such as “pro-life,” “pro-abortion,” “unborn child,” “abortion on demand” and “abortion industry” (Family Research Council). Additionally, the Family Research Council uses the phrases “pro-mother” and “religious liberty” (Family Research Council). The rhetorical strategy of the Family Research Council is squarely addressed by Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Legal Studies Cathy Ruse in the article “The Best Pro-Life Arguments for Secular Audiences,” which appears on the Family Research Council website. Ruse writes that anti-abortion rights activists “will need to make [their] case, in most instances, not in the language of faith or religion but in the language of the post-modern secularist” (Family Research Council).

35

The Family Research Council logo is pictured below:

Few pictures or images are featured on the Family Research Council website. Those that do appear are not of a graphic nature, and do not depict fetuses or babies. Instead, the pictures depict government-related buildings such as the Washington State House and the Capitol Building, or images of press conferences and the Family Research Council “Your Money, Your Values, Your Vote” bus tour (Family Research Council).

Anti-Abortion Rights Lexicon Textual analysis of the materials published by these four organizations informed the creation of a list of key words and phrases repeatedly utilized by the anti-abortion rights movement. This list guides the subsequent textual analysis of earned media attention and the forthcoming analysis of specific linguistic and rhetorical strategies employed by antireproductive rights organizations. A list of these terms and their practical definitions, when appropriate for clarification, follows. 36

Abortion industry Abortion-industrial complex Abortion mill: to describe any clinic that preforms abortions Abortion on demand: elective abortion American Holocaust Baby/child: to describe all stages of pregnancy from fertilization to birth Culture of life: state of federally criminalized abortion Developing child: to describe a fetus at all stages of development Infanticide: to describe termination of a pregnancy at all stages, even before birth Killing Mother Murder Partial-birth abortion: to describe late-term abortion Personhood: defining life as beginning at the moment of fertilization Preborn/unborn child: to describe a fetus at all stages of development Pro-abortion Pro-life Religious liberty These words and phrases are representative of the most commonly featured key words and phrases employed by the four anti-abortion rights organizations studied in this project; this grouping is not intended to be interpreted as an exhaustive list.

37

Media Audit Each brief media audit was designed to assess whether or not news media utilized or contributed to the anti-abortion rights frames by adopting the specific language employed by anti-choice organizations. The surveyed articles, which included mostly straight news articles and some op-ed pieces, resisted the anti-abortion rights frames and employed neutral or proabortion rights language. Neutral language was characterized as writing that did not utilize words or phrases specific to either side of the abortion debate. Neutral language was observed in very short articles that strictly reported facts such as the passage or failure of a bill, with little context and no commentary or quotations from either anti or pro-abortion rights groups. Proabortion rights language was characterized as writing that emphasizes science and medical terms such as zygote, embryo and fetus, the rights and health of women and the concept of “choice.” Some examples of pro-abortion rights language are: Anti-choice Embryo Fertilized egg Fetus/fetal Late-term abortion Pro-abortion rights Pro-choice Rights Woman/women Zygote

38

Of the anti-abortion rights lexicon describe above, the most used phrases were: pro-life, partial-birth abortion, murder, unborn, babies, killed and death. The most arguably inflammatory of these -- murder, killed and death -- appeared rarely and only in opinion pieces. When these words appeared in news stories, they almost exclusively appeared only within quotations from anti-abortion rights organizations or advocates, and very rarely appeared in general usage within reported content. In contrast, the pro-reproductive rights rhetorical strategy effectively permeated the majority of reported content in the news articles appraised. Words and phrases such as abortion rights, pro-choice, fertilized egg, fetus, embryo and zygote were significantly more pervasive throughout this collection of articles. Some more mild terms from the anti-abortion rights lexicon did appear in reported content outside of quotations. The terms “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” appeared frequently in the original writing of reported content in the news articles surveyed. These findings were consistent across all publications, showing no significant disparity in employment of either pro or anti-abortion rights rhetoric between national and local coverage or across the various legislative issues.

39

Public Opinion Poll Data The following chart details the percent of respondents who replied that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances between the years 1975 and 2011 (this project analyzes data from the years 2006 to 2011).

(Gallup, 2011)

40

The following data looks more closely at the same question for the years relevant to this study, specifically 2006 to 2011.

(Gallup, 2011)

41

DISCUSSION Anti-abortion Rights Lexicon The discussion section of this capstone project begins with a close reading of the implications of the key words and phrases employed by the anti-abortion rights groups studied. Two of the most commonly utilized terms pulled from the anti-abortion rights lexicon are “prolife,” which describes people advocating for outlawing abortion, and “pro-abortion,” which described people advocating for abortion-rights. These terms are used frequently enough to seem almost innocuous or fully incorporated into general use, but their implications are explicitly anti-abortion rights. The term “pro-life,” for example, implies that the opponents of this ideology are the opposite, which would be “pro-death.” Similarly, calling advocates for abortion rights “pro-abortion” is a half-truth. Abortion-rights advocates favor access to legal abortion, but calling them “pro-abortion” implies that they favor abortion in the same way abortion opponents favor “life,” which is absolutely and without option. Abortion-rights advocates favor the option of abortion, not mandated or obligatory abortion. A series of anti-abortion rights phrases allude to legal abortion as a type of greedy or corrupt monopoly. These phrases, which include “the abortion industry,” “abortion mills,” “the abortion-industrial complex” and “abortion on demand” characterize the practice of legal abortion as a sinister, assembly-line business whose goal is to terminate as many pregnancies as possible in order to turn as great a profit as possible. These phrases are deliberately employed to frame abortion providers as neglectful, impersonal and rash, indicating that abortions are not designed to cater to the best interests of women. Another key set of key words focuses on humanizing the fetus and invoking emotion instead of science and medicine. The anti-abortion rights lexicon distances the rhetoric of the

42

movement from scientific or medical terms such as “fetus,” or “fertilized egg.” Instead, antiabortion rights groups rely on words and phrases such as “baby,” “developing child” and “preborn” or “unborn” as a means of emotionally involving readers or viewers and asserting their belief that a fetus qualifies as a human being at all stages of pregnancy from the moment of conception, regardless of viability. Invoking the image of a fully formed baby after birth in the context of the abortion debate is an example of the episodic framing detailed by Kimberly Gross. According to Gross, episodic frames focus on specific, tangible examples to effectively use emotion to persuade an audience (Gross, 2008). Inserting a live human baby into an episodic frame about abortion is intended to raise the severity of emotional response to the issue and obscure or confuse the medical or scientific perspective. This particular frame is advanced even further by a set of phrases depicting abortion as an act of violence against a human being, most of which would have no real effect if it were not for the “unborn baby” rhetorical strategy. Anti-abortion rights organizations use terms such as “killing babies,” “murder” and “infanticide” to charge emotions as a method of rousing support. This strategy is concurrent with Jessica Gerrity’s discussion of the “brutality frame” and the success of anti-abortion rights groups in re-framing the medical procedure “intact dilation and extraction” as the more inflammatory and violent-sounding “partial-birth abortion.” A specific grouping of anti-abortion rights keywords discovered in this research are far less violent, instead constructing an idealistic sense of nurturing in the anti-abortion rights community. The phrase “culture of life” is perhaps the most literal example of this rhetorical strategy as it fosters the idea that a country where abortion is federally criminalized will consequently value and respect all lives equally, a significant oversimplification of an incredibly complex cultural dynamic. “Religious liberty” is another idealistic phrase, suggesting that all

43

citizens should be able to fully exercise their personal faith to whatever extent they deem appropriate, regardless of the societal consequences. Framing the abortion debate in this way disregards the reality and complexity of legal abortion and the vast array of situations that could prompt or force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. This dilution of effects is intentional, because to focus on the broader context of the abortion debate would invoke what Kimberly Gross identifies as a thematic frame, which replaces the simplicity of emotional response with the complexity of real-world ramifications. If the general population identifies with the hard cases, anti-abortion rights activists lose their simplified emotional response as a persuasive mechanism. Finally, there is one word in the anti-abortion rights lexicon that forms a powerful frame all by itself: “mother.” The anti-abortion rights groups studied in this capstone project very rarely refer to women as just that, women. Repeatedly referring to pregnant women solely as “mothers” while simultaneously emphasizing the frame of “baby” over “fetus” constructs a subtle but meaningful frame that is essentially at the center of the abortion debate. The message emitted by the use of the word “mother” to describe a pregnant woman eliminates any concept of autonomy or choice, as if when a woman conceives she automatically forfeits her status as a woman who is capable of making or is entitled to make a personal decision regarding the use of her body. The effectiveness of this frame permeates the entire foundation of the abortion debate. The singular and consistent use of the word “mother” by anti-abortion rights groups elevates the status of child-bearing women above the status of women who do not choose motherhood. Deemphasizing the circumstances, health problems or desires of a woman and focusing solely on the woman as the mother of a baby is a means of obscuring the “hard cases” that complicate the “pro-life” agenda, making it easier to elevate the rights of a fetus over the rights of a woman.

44

Website Content The websites of the four organizations studied in this project all employed very similar anti-abortion rights words and phrases, but the sites varied in the inflammatory effects of the language and visuals. Arguably the least inflammatory or extreme content was featured on the Family Research Council website. This is most likely due to the fact that the FRC is primarily a lobbying group, and draws much of its persuasive power from the ability to be taken seriously by elected officials. The majority of abortion information available on the website is formatted as educational pamphlets or scholarly articles, perhaps as part of a concerted effort to project a polished and professional image in a debate frequently characterized by extremism. Even its logo, a depiction of the capitol building, contributes to this carefully constructed sophisticated and influential persona, which may be aimed at appealing to average citizens who are not firmly committed to either side of the abortion debate. The National Right to Life Committee’s website is also stark and similarly formatted, although it employs slightly more inflammatory language than the Family Research Council. The site relies heavily on “scientific” claims, although the validity of such assertions are often of questionable origin. Overall, the tone of the site clearly utilizes the anti-abortion rights lexicon and reinforces anti-abortion rights frames, but does not invoke the inflammatory energy or urgency of the two remaining websites. This tone seems to reflect the current philosophy of the organization, which, while it firmly believes in outlawing all abortion, rescinded its support of Ohio House Bill 125 based on the assertion that the bill was too extreme to become law and would likely serve as a distraction from their mission to end abortion instead of as a mechanism to accomplish their ultimate goals.

45

Personhood USA represents a spike in extreme rhetoric from the relatively mild Family Research Council and National Right to Life Committee websites. The fervent invocation of religion, the extremism of the personhood legislation and the comparisons of abortion to humanitarian tragedies such as slavery and the Holocaust lend a significantly more inflammatory tone to this site. Predictably, this site also reinforces anti-abortion rights frames by utilizing other words and phrases from the anti-abortion rights lexicon in its texts and videos. One of the most powerful means of reinforcing anti-abortion rights frames is the Personhood USA logo itself. The logo clearly depicts a living fetus, but it is not shown inside a womb, nor is there any reference to a woman at all. This image has the same effects as replacing the word “woman” with the word “mother,” which is that the woman is intentionally removed from sight and mind as her rights become secondary to those of the fetus she carries. Additionally, depicting the fetus without the mother reinforces the underlying principle of “personhood,” which asserts that even an inviable fetus has the rights of a fully formed child living on its own outside the womb. A similar image constitutes the Operation Rescue logo, which portrays a fetus nestled into the “O” of Operation Rescue. In this instance the organization itself takes the place of the woman’s womb, suggesting that these particular anti-abortion rights activists are better equipped to handle a pregnancy than the woman herself. Operation Rescue has the most radical background of the four organizations studied, and its website content reflects this inflammatory history. This organization features some of the more extreme rhetoric from the anti-abortion rights lexicon in both its text and videos. The most inflammatory content, however, takes the form of the graphic images that Operation Rescue uses to reinforce the “brutality frame” and arouse an emotional reaction in viewers. These images of

46

aborted fetuses are explicitly referred to as “babies,” reinforcing the frame that abortion is akin to murder.

Frames Established 1) Exact opposites: Proponents of choice are not “pro-life,” so they must be “pro-death.” 2) Simplicity: Abortion is morally wrong and must be outlawed regardless of circumstances. 3) Abortion as industry: Abortion clinics and providers are in business, not medicine. 4) Abortion as murder: A fetus at even the earliest stages of development is subject to the same laws as a living child outside the womb, so terminating a pregnancy equates infanticide. 5) Mothers over women: A woman who chooses motherhood is more highly valued and respected than a woman who decides against motherhood.

Media Audit The results of the media audit section of this research were fairly homogenous across two planes of analysis. There was no marked difference between coverage in The Washington Times and The New York Times, which were chosen to represent different ideological biases. In addition, there were no significant disparities between national press and local press. All publications surveyed generally rejected the assumption of rhetoric belonging to the antiabortion rights lexicon outside the confines of quotations given by representatives of antiabortion rights organizations. The significance of this discovery is that even though antiabortion rights groups employ this specific set of keywords and phrases in their own literature and promotional materials as well as through the talking points of their media correspondents,

47

their frames appear to be infrequently incorporated into reported content in the surveyed news media. The distinct absence of inflammatory language from the anti-abortion rights lexicon in the news media is furthered by the unequal presence of abortion-rights keywords and phrases. While the news sources surveyed did not explicitly endorse the viewpoints of abortion-rights advocates, language from this side of the abortion debate tended to appear in news articles more frequently than anti-abortion rights language. Considering this information through the lens of Sheufele and Tewksbury’s definitions of agenda setting and framing is useful in understanding the implications it may have. Agenda setting, according to Sheufele and Tewksbury, determines whether or not information about an issue is accessible to the public, whereas framing influences the way in which the public interprets an issue. The availability of media coverage in both liberal-leaning and conservativeleaning newspapers, as well is in both national and local publications suggests that agenda setting is at work, at least to some extent, in the current climate of the abortion debate. The news media, in other words, is covering anti-abortion rights legislation and making the information accessible to the public. The frame, in this case, is fairly subtle, but seems to lean in favor of pro-abortion rights advocates and organizations by utilizing their language and largely rejecting the language of anti-abortion rights advocates and organizations.

Public Opinion Poll Data The research and public polling organization Gallup has been asking the same question concerning abortion since 1975, only two years after the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized the procedure across the country. This question: “Do you think abortions should be legal under any

48

circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances” has been met with similar statistical replies for the last 37 years. The least number of respondents generally indicate that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances” wavering only from 13 to 22 percent over the span of all years measured. “Legal in all circumstances” and “legal only under certain circumstances” each remained fairly consistent as well, wavering between 22 and 34 percent and 48 and 55 percent, respectively. This polling data shows that over the course of the abortion debate in the United States since 1975, the category of respondents that varied the least in their opinion about abortion is the middle-ground group that believes abortion should be “legal only under certain circumstances.” Information such as this suggests that this group will more or less maintain its position regardless of changing influences in media coverage, employment of extreme rhetoric or political climate. When focusing on the Gallup responses to this same question from the years 20062011, the same trend is generally repeated. “Legal only under certain circumstances” is by far and consistently the most common response, followed by “legal under any circumstances” and finally “illegal in all circumstances.” Notably, beginning with the data from July, 2009, the two polarized responses, “legal under any circumstances” and “illegal in all circumstances,” follow nearly identical graphical trajectories. Although continuously separated by approximately five percentage points, the two lines both move steeply upward, then slightly downward and finally level in precisely the same years. At the same time that “illegal in all circumstances” and “legal under any circumstances” simultaneously rose in response percentage, the middle ground response “legal only under certain circumstances” markedly declined. These patterns suggest that some kind of external influence, such as media coverage, the employment of extreme rhetoric or the political climate, influenced the holders of the polarized opinions to become either stronger

49

or more vocal in their beliefs. That catalyst might be said to have motivated a strengthening of either strict pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion rights respondents, but was clearly unable to influence the “middle ground” respondents. Tiffany Derville suggested that the primary function of radical activist tactics is not to change the minds of dissenters or sway the masses, but that it instead serves to strengthen the convictions of those already committed to the cause. The trends indicated by this Gallup public poll data seems to confirm this assertion.

Collective Implications Considering all of the elements of this capstone lends valuable insight into the ways that anti-abortion rights rhetorical strategies are pervading the social sphere. The apparent reluctance of the news media surveyed to adopt and utilize anti-abortion rights language combined with relatively stable public opinion data regarding abortion rights indicates that extreme rhetoric is not effectively permeating the language or attitudes of those without passionate convictions aligned with either polarized side. It is unlikely that, outside of radical anti-abortion rights circles, words or phrases such as “infanticide” or “abortion on demand” are used to casually describe legal abortion in the United States. This does not mean, however, that language from the anti-abortion rights lexicon is not influencing cultural discussion of abortion, public opinion and public policy. Instead, it suggests that the effects of anti-abortion rights rhetoric are achieved in a more subtle, and perhaps more deeply pervasive way. This capstone noted that news media most commonly reiterated anti-abortion rights phrases such as “pro-life” and “partial-birth abortion,” which, while arguably less radical than some other available language, are so deeply rooted in the dialogue around abortion that they may be very difficult to replace. The fact that average Americans generally differentiate between sides in the abortion debate as

50

“pro-life” and “pro-choice” is beneficial for anti-abortion rights activists. Deeply embedding anti-abortion rights terms in this manner subtly, maybe even subconsciously, reinforces the frames of anti-abortion rights activists. Even the phrase “personhood” is starting to have this effect: introducing “personhood” legislation and indoctrinating this term as shorthand for the associated bills or amendments (for example, Mississippi Initiative 26 is overwhelmingly referenced as the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment”), reinforces the “abortion as murder” frame every time the phrase is used. Ultimately, while the anti-abortion rights language that is being picked up and utilized, and therefore indoctrinated, by American society is not particularly radical or extreme, these subtle words and phrases are still effective in reinforcing anti-abortion rights frames.

51

CONCLUSION

Throughout the course of this capstone project, the researcher addresses the complex interplay of extreme anti-choice rhetoric, media coverage, public opinion and public policy in the context of the abortion debates in the United States in the years 2011 and 2012. Recognizing that all of these elements connect and overlap in complicated ways to shape the dialogue and policies governing abortion in the United States, this capstone analyzes the potential impacts of anti-abortion rights rhetoric and communication strategy on different spheres of the present-day abortion debate. The purpose of this project is to gain further insight into the unprecedented success of anti-abortion rights legislation in the year 2011 by assessing the use of extreme rhetoric by antiabortion rights groups and how this inflammatory language might impact discussion of the abortion issue in the media as well as in the public sphere. This capstone is significant in light of the record numbers of anti-abortion rights policies proposed and/or enacted in 2011, which seems to indicate an increased effectiveness of anti-abortion rights activism. Proponents of abortion rights can use this research to assess their own strategies and determine how best to counter the communication strategies of abortion rights opponents. To address these research goals and guidelines, this capstone presents an in-depth case study exploration of four prominent anti-abortion rights organizations with connections to recent policy provisions restricting access to abortion.

52

The organizations and corresponding policy debates are: - Personhood USA and the “Mississippi Personhood Amendment” - National Right to Life and the “Ohio Heartbeat Bill” - Operation Rescue and Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation - Family Research Council and the “Protect Life Act” The project also studies media coverage of these four pieces of legislation from national and local newspapers, and analyzes public opinion data concerning general attitudes toward abortion. This research indicates that while the organizations surveyed and their representatives certainly employ a lexicon of distinctly anti-abortion rights language that imposes specific frames on the debate, the most inflammatory terms are rarely repeated in the media and public opinion regarding abortion has remained generally steadfast for decades. Some anti-abortion rights terms such as “pro-life,” however, are so widely used that they appear to have entered common or preferred usage, which effectively reinforces the abortion frames established by the anti-abortion rights lexicon. This study could be expanded in the future by simply analyzing more content from both anti-abortion rights organizations and media coverage. A longer study might select additional organizations to analyze, or might employ content analysis of a greater amount of news articles to add a quantitative element to the case studies. Additionally, it would be beneficial in the case of this research to implement more ways to gauge public opinion, such as monitoring user comments on the social media platforms of the selected anti-abortion rights groups. Another key element for future study should include poll data that surveys more public opinion information regarding abortion in the years 2011 and 2012. At the time of this writing, limited poll data for such recent dates is unavailable, but such data will be valuable for gauging public opinion during

53

these tumultuous years spanning the proposal and enactment of record numbers of anti-abortion rights policies.

54

WORKS CITED Derville, T. (2005). Radical activist tactics: Overturning public relations conceptualizations. Public Relations Review, 31, 527-533. Elections: Initiatives - 26 definition of a person. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sos.ms.gov/ page.aspx?s=7&s1=1&s2=50 Family Research Council. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.frc.org/ Gallup. (2011). Abortion. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/poll/1576/ Abortion.aspx Gerrity, J. C. (2010). Building a framing campaign: Interest groups and the debate on partialbirth abortion. In B. Schaffner & P. Sellers (Eds.), Winning with Words (pp. 60-77). New York, NY: Routledge. Gorney, C. (1998). Articles of faith: a frontline history of the abortion wars. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191-1237. H.r. 358: Protect life act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358 Kimberly Gross (2008). Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emotional Response, and Policy Opinion, Political Psychology, 29 (2), pp. 169-192. Guttmacher Institute. (2012, January 05). States enact record number of abortion restrictions in 2011. Retrieved from http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/ endofyear.html Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

55

Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: It's not what you say, it's what people hear. New York, NY: Hyperion Books. Masci, D. (2008, September 19). A history of key abortion rulings of the u.s. supreme court. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/A-History-of-Key-Abortion-Rulingsof-the-US-Supreme-Court.aspx NARAL Pro-Choice America. (n.d.). Kansas: Political info and laws in brief. Retrieved from http://www.naral.org/government-and-you/state-governments/state-profiles/kansas.html National Abortion Federation. (n.d.). History of abortion. Retrieved from http:// www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html National Right to Life Committee. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.nrlc.org/ Ohio General Assembly. (n.d.). Laws, acts and legislation. Retrieved from http:// www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_125 Scheufele, Dietram, and David Tewksbury (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57 (1), 9-20. Operation Rescue. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.operationrescue.org/ Personhood USA. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.personhoodusa.com/ Project heart changer. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://heartchanger.com/index.php States enact record number of abortion restrictions in 2011. (2012, January 5). Retrieved from http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html

56

APPENDIX A: Mississippi Initiative sample articles The New York Times October 26, 2011 Wednesday Correction Appended Late Edition - Final Voters in Mississippi to Weigh Amendment on Conception as the Start of Life BYLINE: By ERIK ECKHOLM; Eric Eagan contributed reporting from Hattiesburg, Miss. SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 16 LENGTH: 1353 words A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder. With this far-reaching anti-abortion strategy, the proponents of what they call personhood amendments hope to reshape the national debate. ''I view it as transformative,'' said Brad Prewitt, a lawyer and executive director of the Yes on 26 campaign, which is named for the Mississippi proposition. ''Personhood is bigger than just shutting abortion clinics; it's an opportunity for people to say that we're made in the image of God.'' Many doctors and women's health advocates say the proposals would cause a dangerous intrusion of criminal law into medical care, jeopardizing women's rights and even their lives. The amendment in Mississippi would ban virtually all abortions, including those resulting from rape or incest. It would bar some birth control methods, including IUDs and ''morning-after pills,'' which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. It would also outlaw the destruction of embryos created in laboratories. The amendment has been endorsed by candidates for governor from both major parties, and it appears likely to pass, said W. Martin Wiseman, director of the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University. Legal challenges would surely follow, but even if the amendment is ultimately declared unconstitutional, it could disrupt vital care, critics say, and force years of costly court battles.

57

''This is the most extreme in a field of extreme anti-abortion measures that have been before the states this year,'' said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal advocacy group. Opponents, who were handing out brochures on Saturday to tailgate partiers before the University of Southern Mississippi football game in Hattiesburg, said they hoped to dispel the impression that the amendment simply bars abortions -- a popular idea in Mississippi -- by warning that it would also limit contraceptives, make doctors afraid to save women with lifethreatening pregnancies and possibly hamper in vitro fertility treatments. The drive for personhood amendments has split the anti-abortion forces nationally. Some groups call it an inspired moral leap, while traditional leaders of the fight, including National Right to Life and the Roman Catholic bishops, have refused to promote it, charging that the tactic is reckless and could backfire, leading to a Supreme Court defeat that would undermine progress in carving away at Roe v. Wade. The approach, granting legal rights to embryos, is fundamentally different from the abortion restrictions that have been adopted in dozens of states. These try to narrow or hamper access to abortions by, for example, sharply restricting the procedures at as early as 20 weeks, requiring women to view ultrasounds of the fetus, curbing insurance coverage and imposing expensive regulations on clinics. The Mississippi amendment aims to sidestep existing legal battles, simply stating that ''the term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.'' A similar measure has been defeated twice, by large margins, in Colorado. But the national campaign, promoted by Personhood USA, a Colorado-based group, found more receptive ground in Mississippi, where anti-abortion sentiment crosses party and racial lines, and where the state already has so many restrictions on abortion that only one clinic performs the procedure. In 2009, an ardent abortion foe named Les Riley formed a state personhood group and started collecting the signatures needed to reach the ballot. Evangelicals and other longtime abortion opponents have pressed the case, and Proposition 26 has the support of a range of political leaders. Its passage could energize similar drives brewing in Florida, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states. In Mississippi, the emotional battle is being fought with radio and television ads, phone banks and old-fashioned canvassing. Among the picnicking fans being lobbied outside the stadium in Hattiesburg on Saturday, Lauree Mooney, 40, and her husband, Jerry Mooney, 45, U.S.M. alumni, disagreed with each other. She said that she is against abortion but that the amendment is ''too extreme.'' Mr. Mooney said he would vote yes because ''I've always been against abortion.''

58

Shelley Shoemake, 41, a chiropractor, said the proposal is ''yanking me in one direction and the other.'' She knows women who had abortions as teenagers, and feels compassion for them. ''I've got a lot of praying to do'' before the vote, she said. Mississippi will also elect a new governor on Nov. 8. The Republican candidate, Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, is co-chairman of Yes on 26 and his campaign distributes bumper stickers for the initiative. The Democratic candidate, Johnny DuPree, the mayor of Hattiesburg and the state's first black major-party candidate for governor in modern times, says he will vote for it though he is worried about its impact on medical care and contraception. No one can yet be sure of how the amendment would affect criminal proceedings, said Jonathan Will, director of the Bioethics and Health Law Center at the Mississippi College School of Law. Could a woman taking a morning-after pill be charged with murder? But many leaders of the anti-abortion movement fear that the strategy will be counterproductive. Federal courts would almost surely declare the amendment unconstitutional, said James Bopp Jr., a prominent conservative lawyer from Terre Haute, Ind., and general counsel of National Right to Life, since it contradicts a woman's current right to an abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy. ''From the standpoint of protecting unborn lives it's utterly futile,'' he said, ''and it has the grave risk that if it did get to the Supreme Court, the court would write an even more extreme abortion policy.'' Bishop Joseph Latino of Jackson, Miss., said in a statement last week that the Roman Catholic Church does not support Proposition 26 because ''the push for a state amendment could ultimately harm our efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.'' Conservative Christian groups including the American Family Association and the Family Research Council are firmly behind the proposal. Dr. Randall S. Hines , a fertility specialist in Jackson working against Proposition 26 with the group Mississippians for Healthy Families, said that the amendment reflects ''biological ignorance.'' Most fertilized eggs, he said, do not implant in the uterus or develop further. ''Once you recognize that the majority of fertilized eggs don't become people, then you recognize how absurd this amendment is,'' Dr. Hines said. He fears severe unintended consequences for doctors and women dealing with ectopic or other dangerous pregnancies and for in vitro fertility treatments. ''We'll be asking the Legislature, the governor, judges to decide what is best for the patient,'' he said. Dr. Eric Webb, an obstetrician in Tupelo, Miss., who has spoken out on behalf of Proposition 26, said that the concerns about wider impacts were overblown and that the critics were ''avoiding the central moral question.'' ''With the union of the egg and sperm, that is life, and genetically human,'' Dr. Webb said.

59

Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, said he did not agree that the Supreme Court would necessarily reject a personhood amendment. The ultimate goal, he said, is a federal amendment, with a victory in Mississippi as the first step.

60

The Washington Times June 7, 2011 Tuesday Pro-choice forces seek to prevent referendum; Mississippi slated to vote on 'personhood' BYLINE: By Cheryl Wetzstein THE WASHINGTON TIMES SECTION: A, NATION; Pg. 7 LENGTH: 571 words Stepping into a growing national debate over abortion rights, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments Monday about whether to allow a "personhood" amendment to remain on the ballot this fall. If passed by Mississippi voters in November, Measure 26 would define a "person" in the state's constitution as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof," said sponsors Les Riley and Personhood Mississippi. The amendment and others under consideration in other states are designed to effectively outlaw abortion and set up a potential challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that struck down state laws against abortion in the United States. Pro-choice supporters oppose Measure 26, and two Mississippi women, Deborah Hughes and Cristen Hemmins, are seeking to block the amendment from the ballot. Their case is supported by lawyers associated with the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Center for Reproductive Rights. In an hourlong session Monday, Robert McDuff, a Jackson, Miss., attorney for the plaintiffs, told the nine justices that they were simply being asked to decide "whether the rules were followed" in having Measure 26 approved for the ballot. The people of Mississippi voted in 1992 to create two ways to amend their state constitution: gather signatures to put an initiative on the ballot or have their legislature pass an amendment for voters to approve or reject, Mr. McDuff said. Measure 26 is unconstitutional because the 1992 law said that the initiative process "shall not be used for the proposal, modification or repeal for any portion of the Bill of Rights of this constitution," he argued. Liberty Counsel lawyer Stephen Crampton countered that Measure 26 is permissible because it only clarifies the meaning of a word - "person" - in the state's Bill of Rights. Mississippi Supreme Court Presiding Justice Jess H. Dickinson and Associate Justice Michael K. Randolph frequently led the questioning, which focused on the meanings of words such as 61

"modification" and "amend," and the relevance of another section in the Mississippi Constitution that allows the people to "alter and abolish their constitution ... whenever they deem it." Last fall, Hinds County Circuit Judge Malcolm Harrison ruled that the proposed "personhood" amendment could be placed before voters. The state constitution "recognizes the right of citizens to amend their constitution," and the plaintiffs "carry a heavy burden in attempting to restrict" that right, Judge Harrison wrote. Amendment supporters think their approach will disallow abortions, including for pregnancies involving rape. To bolster their arguments, Personhood Mississippi has been helping Rebecca Kiessling, whose mother was raped at knifepoint, speak at events. "A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim - an abortion is," said Ms. Kiessling, who tells audiences how her birth mother sought an abortion, which was illegal at the time, but then gave birth and placed her daughter up for adoption instead. Supporters of the "personhood" concept also think their approach is key to protecting disabled persons and the elderly and block science experiments using human embryos. A similar amendment was twice rejected by Colorado voters, but efforts to pass personhood amendments are progressing in other states, including Louisiana and Alabama.

62

Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (Tupelo) Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News October 20, 2011 Thursday Group rallies against Initiative 26 BYLINE: Errol Castens, Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, Tupelo SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS LENGTH: 390 words Oct. 20--OXFORD -- More than 100 people gathered Wednesday afternoon on the Lafayette County Courthouse grounds to voice their opposition to Initiative 26, the Mississippi Personhood Initiative, which will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. If passed, 26 will define "person" in the Mississippi State Constitution as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." Proponents of the measure say it would protect the unborn, while opponents warn of ramifications from judicial and legislative quagmires to the outlawing of oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices. Speakers spoke from medical, legal and personal perspectives. Dr. Tom Fowlkes shared the Mississippi State Medical Association's statement on the initiative, which says common obstetrical and gynecological procedures "could be interpreted as murder or wrongful death if Proposal 26 passes." One speaker whose three children were conceived with fertility treatments noted Initiative 26 presumably would put limits on the number of eggs that can be fertilized for an in-vitro procedure. She said any promise that in-vitro fertilization would still be legal under Initiative 26 would be like a pledge to keep driving legal while rationing gasoline to one gallon per month. Cristen Hemmins, one of the plaintiffs in an unsuccessful suit to keep the measure off the ballot, spoke of her experience almost 20 years ago when she was kidnapped, raped and, as she tried to escape, shot. "If Initiative 26 had been in place when this happened to me, I would have had no options," she said. "If I had gotten pregnant, I would have been forced by the government to bear a child, which might have killed me physically and emotionally." Rally-goers emphasized their opinions with signs touting such positions as "In Moms We Trust," "Keep Birth Control Legal" and, paraphrasing the University of Mississippi's signature cheer, "Hotty Toddy Gosh Almighty -- Keep Your Laws Off My Body."

63

The rally was sponsored by Lafayette County Women for Progress Anti-26 Subcommittee, Mississippians for Healthy Families and Parents Against Personhood.

64

APPENDIX B: Ohio House Bill 125 sample articles The New York Times December 5, 2011 Monday Late Edition - Final Anti-Abortion Groups Are Split on Legal Tactics BYLINE: By ERIK ECKHOLM SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1 LENGTH: 1335 words A widening and emotional rift over legal tactics has split the anti-abortion movement, with its longtime leaders facing a Tea Party-like insurrection from many grass-roots activists who are impatient with the pace of change. For decades, established anti-abortion leaders like National Right to Life and Catholic bishops have pushed for gradually chipping away at the edges of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, with state laws to impose limits on late-term abortions, to require women to view sonograms or to prohibit insurance coverage for the procedure. But now many activists and evangelical Christian groups are pressing for an all-out legal assault on Roe. v. Wade in the hope -- others call it a reckless dream -- that the Supreme Court is ready to consider a radical change in the ruling. The rift widened last month over a so-called personhood amendment in Mississippi that would have barred virtually all abortions by giving legal rights to embryos. It was voted down but is still being pursued in several states. Now, in Ohio, a bill before the state legislature that would ban abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detectable, usually six to eight weeks into pregnancy, is the latest effort by activists to force a legal showdown. The so-called heartbeat bill is tearing apart the state's powerful anti-abortion forces. Ohio Right to Life, which has been the premier lobby, and the state Catholic conference have refused to support the measure, arguing that the court is not ready for such a radical step and that it could cause a legal setback. But the idea has stirred the passions of some traditional leaders, even winning the endorsement of Dr. John C. Willke of Cincinnati, the former president of National Right to Life and one of the founders of the modern anti-abortion movement.

65

''I was Mr. Incremental,'' Dr. Willke, 87, said of his career promoting the more modest restrictions. ''But after nearly 40 years of abortion on demand, it's time to take a bold step forward.'' Dr. Willke, who in 1971 created what became Ohio Right to Life, called his onetime organization out of touch with the ''unrestrained enthusiasm'' that the heartbeat bill has unleashed and that he said is emerging in many other states. Mark S. Gietzen, director of the Kansas Coalition for Life, called the bill ''the most exciting thing that has happened in the pro-life movement since Roe v. Wade,'' adding that a heartbeat bill modeled on Ohio's would be introduced when the Kansas Legislature convenes in January. Defenders of abortion rights, in turn, call banning abortions at the first sign of a heartbeat a patently unconstitutional proposal that is doomed to failure. The refusal of Ohio Right to Life to get behind the heartbeat proposal has led to bitter dissent. In the last two weeks, six county chapters have angrily withdrawn from the organization including, on Thursday, the Cincinnati chapter, the state's oldest and largest. ''Step-by-step measures haven't stopped the killing,'' said Linda J. Theis, president of Ohio ProLife Action, a new group that was formed in October to press for the heartbeat bill, and that has absorbed the breakaway chapters. ''It's hard to be against a bill that says that once a baby's heart is beating, you shouldn't take his life.'' The bill is awaiting action in the heavily Republican Senate. If it passes, which some expect to happen this winter, Gov. John R. Kasich, a conservative Republican, seems likely to sign it. Officially, National Right to Life, the umbrella group for state chapters, has taken no position on the heartbeat bill or on the fracturing of the movement. The national spokesman, Derrick Jones, said, ''This isn't really something we want to get into.'' James Bopp Jr., a lawyer in Indiana who is general counsel to National Right to Life but did not speak for the organization, condemned both the personhood and the heartbeat proposals as futile and likely to backfire. But he played down the current split. ''There has always been a division between those who want to concentrate on what will make a difference, and those who are more interested in making a statement that makes them feel better,'' he said. The heartbeat bill, if not as sweeping as personhood, has a more visceral public appeal, its promoters argue, and avoids some of the pitfalls of the personhood proposal, posing no threat to contraception or critical medical care. In theory, the law would prevent a large majority of abortions, perhaps 80 to 90 percent, by Dr. Willke's calculation. Doctors who perform abortions in violation would be subject to a felony charge, fines and loss of their medical license, but the women would not face charges. The bill would allow an abortion if a woman's life or a major bodily function were in danger. Abortions for victims of rape or incest would not be allowed.

66

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, currently around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Proponents of the heartbeat bill acknowledge that federal courts would be obliged to declare it unconstitutional. Their hope is that the Supreme Court would take it on and that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who would likely provide the swing vote, is open to rethinking Roe. ''Courts never change their minds unless they are invited to,'' said David F. Forte, a law professor at Cleveland State University who helped draft the bill, in testimony before the Ohio Legislature. But other prominent anti-abortion lawyers said it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would take the case and that if it did, the result would be an affirmation of the right to an abortion, making a reversal harder and perhaps striking down some existing state limits. ''The court has not backed away from viability as the dividing line,'' said Paul B. Linton, a lawyer in Illinois who was formerly general counsel to Americans United for Life. He accused the dissenting activists of ''wishful thinking.'' The heartbeat bill was initially proposed by Janet Porter, a nationally known evangelical activist who has crusaded against abortion and gay rights, once worked for Ohio Right to Life, and now heads a ''pro-family'' group called Faith2Action. Ms. Porter says that similar heartbeat bills are being developed by activists in at least 10 other states including Mississippi, Louisiana and Arizona. In Kansas, Mr. Gietzen predicted that a heartbeat bill would ''sail through'' the Legislature despite the lack of support from the state's Right to Life affiliate and the Catholic church, which has not allowed his group to circulate heartbeat-bill petitions at Sunday Masses. Conservative evangelical groups like the Family Research Council and the American Family Association have endorsed both the personhood and heartbeat approaches. Matthew D. Staver, dean of the law school at Liberty University, founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, said that National Right to Life had ''lost its legitimacy'' and was ''on the wrong side of advancing human life protections.'' Michael Gonidakis, the executive director of Ohio Right to Life, called the internal split ''a difference over tactics.'' He noted that anti-abortion forces have won several important legislative victories in the state this year and that a large majority of local chapters remained on board. ''We've tried to shine light on the unintended consequences of the heartbeat bill,'' he said. ''This division is unfortunate because it takes us off message and does not help one mother or protect one baby.'' But feelings are running high in the departing chapters. ''We've had 39 years of talk and regulation, it's time to WIN this war and actually PROTECT babies with beating hearts,'' said Julie Doehner, president of the Geauga County chapter of Ohio Right to Life, in a news release on Nov. 28 announcing that the county was shifting its allegiance to the new group that endorsed the heartbeat bill. ''If the choice is between unity and life,'' she said, ''we choose life.''

67

The Washington Times September 21, 2011 Wednesday Backers rally for tough 'heartbeat' abortion bill; Bars ending pregnancy at earlier stage BYLINE: By Cheryl Wetzstein THE WASHINGTON TIMES SECTION: A, NATION; Pg. 6 LENGTH: 409 words Hundreds of pro-life supporters rallied Tuesday as part of a drive to make Ohio the first state in the country to pass a law effectively banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected. "This day signals the beginning of the end of abortion on demand," Janet Folger Porter, president of Faith2Action, told the rally in the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus.. People have seen bumper stickers saying "Abortion stops a beating heart," she said. "What I want to tell you, though, is when the heartbeat bill becomes law, we're going to reverse this: And it's going to mean that 'a beating heart stops abortion.' " The bill, HB125, passed the Ohio House of Representatives in June. It now goes before the state Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans. The chamber started its fall session Tuesday. The bill would require a doctor to check for a fetal heartbeat and inform the woman. If there is a detectable heartbeat, an abortion would be prohibited unless there was a risk of death or major injury to the woman's health. Supporters believe the bill would block tens of thousands of abortions, as a fetal heartbeat can be typically heard around the sixth week of pregnancy, and sometimes as soon as three weeks' gestation. Republican presidential candidates, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, support the bill, as do many pro-family groups. Pro-choice groups, however, have denounced the bill and a slew of other efforts at the state level in recent months to restrict abortion, and held their own statehouse rally Tuesday. "We will be a constant reminder to legislators that Ohioans are in no mood for an anti-choice agenda to take over the statehouse," said Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. NARAL and its allies reject the "heartbeat bill" because they say it would virtually eliminate access to legal abortion in Ohio, and because it does not provide exceptions for victims of rape or incest, or for cases where there are fetal anomalies.

68

Separately, a group called Personhood Ohio is collecting signatures to put a constitutional amendment before voters in 2012. Supporters believe their amendment would go even further than the heartbeat bill - defining a person as any human being or human organism at every stage of biological development, including fertilization, The practical effect, backers say, is that the measure would essentially outlaw abortion.

69

Backers push ‘heartbeat’ bill to halt abortions Proposal might be derailed by language of Issue 3 By Alan Johnson The Columbus Dispatch Thursday December 8, 2011 12:01 PM Jay LaPrete | Associated Press Hours of emotional testimony and an appearance by a 9-week-old who had earlier “testified” as a 9-week-old fetus marked the emergence yesterday of a controversial “heartbeat” bill in the Ohio Senate. House Bill 125, which was approved by the House in June, would ban abortions for women after a fetal heartbeat can be detected medically, usually six to seven weeks into a pregnancy. Sponsors say it would give Ohio the nation’s most-restrictive anti-abortion law; critics charge it is blatantly unconstitutional and unlikely to withstand a court challenge. State Rep. Lynn R Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, sponsor of the bill, said he’s confident it will weather legal challenges. “If I felt the courts would strike this down, I would not carry it forward,” he said. One witness, Dr. Carmen Doty-Armstrong, an obstetrician-gynecologist from Findlay, said a heartbeat “is an indicator of life we cannot ignore. ... When there is a living heartbeat, it deserves to be protected.” However, legal questions about the proposal were raised in the Senate Health, Human Services & Aging Committee hearing, one linked to state Issue 3. The constitutional amendment approved by voters last month prohibits compelling anyone to receive heath care or participate in a healthcare system. Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, didn’t take a position on the heartbeat bill. But Thompson, whose organization wrote Issue 3, said the amendment could “very well” be construed by the courts to affect a medical decision preventing an abortion. Thompson said passage of the anti-abortion bill as written could be “rolling the dice” in terms of passing constitutional muster.

70

That echoes the position taken by the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, both of which oppose the heartbeat measure. The only silent witness was Halley Carolina Glockner, an infant who was carried into the hearing room by a smiling Sen. Cliff Hite, R-Findlay. Halley’s mother, Erin Glockner of Pataskala, underwent an ultrasound exam during an appearance at a House committee meeting in March. “You heard her heart then and now you can see her face and look into her eyes,” said Ducia Hamm, of the Ashland Care Center. “This child deserved to have her heart continue to beat.” David F. Forte, a Cleveland State University law professor who helped write the heartbeat legislation, said it is based on an individual’s right to be protected from harm. “This bill is ready to make history,” he said. Michelle McCauley of Sylvania told the committee she regrets having had two abortions. She said she now counsels women after abortions. “Not one woman that I have counseled has ever said she was glad she had an abortion,” McCauley said. “It kills and destroys both the baby and the mother.” The proposal has created a rift among abortion opponents, pitting a fledgling, conservative coalition called Faith2Action, led by Janet Porter, against the long-established Ohio Right to Life movement. Linda Theis of new Right to Life rival Ohio ProLife Action told the committee, “The time has come to stop the killing. This is your invitation to do that, senators.” Also testifying for the bill was Dr. Jack Willke, founder of the national and Ohio Right to Life. He said the time is ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion in the U.S. But Stephanie Krider, director of legislative affairs for Ohio Right to Life, said the heartbeat bill is “likely to backfire” and could result in a setback for the anti-abortion-rights movement. “Let’s not let emotion blind us from reality,” she said. The committee is expected to hear from opponents of the heartbeat bill next week.

71

APPENDIX C: Kansas Abortion Clinic Regulation sample articles The New York Times July 1, 2011 Friday Late Edition - Final Kansas Gives License to One Abortion Clinic BYLINE: By A. G. SULZBERGER SECTION: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 13 LENGTH: 476 words KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Ending speculation that new regulations could make it the only state without an abortion provider, Kansas announced Thursday that it had issued a license that would allow one of three abortion clinics to continue operating. The license was awarded to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, for a Kansas Cityarea clinic, the largest in the state. The other two providers, which previously said they were unable to meet the requirements, will be in federal court on Friday to seek an injunction to keep the law from taking effect. ''Notwithstanding that the regulations are burdensome and unnecessary, the findings of the inspection indicate what we have known and said throughout this process: Planned Parenthood operates with the highest standards of patient care and has rigorous safety procedures in place,'' Peter B. Brownlie, president of the organization, said in a statement. Part of a sweeping set of abortion limits approved this year, the regulations dictate the size of rooms, the stocking of emergency equipment, medication and blood supplies, and ties to nearby hospitals. They were formally issued in June and approved Thursday, allowing little time for the clinics to meet requirements they described as unnecessarily onerous. Abortion opponents argued that the limits were necessary to ensure that basic medical standards were met for the safety of women. ''The government has a right to demand a certain amount of protection for patients, so I have every confidence that these laws will be upheld,'' said David Gittrich, development director for Kansans for Life, which lobbied for the regulations. Though leaders at Planned Parenthood had maintained that they could meet the regulations, the license was denied earlier in the week by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. That decision was reversed after another inspection on Thursday, after the clinic secured additional equipment and made procedural changes required under the rules. A lawsuit the organization filed challenging the denial will be withdrawn, Mr. Brownlie said.

72

If the other two Kansas City-area clinics close, Kansas will join two other states, South Dakota and Mississippi, that have just one abortion provider, according to a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion statistics. ''It will be very difficult for us to accommodate the volume of people they're seeing,'' Mr. Brownlie said. In another challenge, a federal judge in South Dakota granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday to keep a new abortion law from taking effect. The judge ruled that the law's requirements that a woman must first seek counseling at an anti-abortion pregnancy help center and then wait three days after an initial consultation before having an abortion appeared to constitute an undue burden on a woman's right to the procedure.

73

Topeka Capital-Journal (Kansas) October 28, 2011 Friday Doctors to sue over new Kan. abortion clinic rules BYLINE: John Hanna. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LENGTH: 698 words Three doctors who perform abortions in Kansas will challenge new regulations for their clinics even after the rules were revised to placate the physicians, their attorneys said Thursday, arguing that the rules still impose unreasonable and "irrational" requirements. The physicians - Herbert Hodes, his daughter, Traci Nauser, and Ronald Yeomans - already persuaded a federal judge to block the earlier version of the rules. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Hodes and Nauser, and Cheryl Pilate, who represents Yeomans, both said Thursday they would sue over the revised regulations. Hodes and Nauser perform abortions and other services at their medical offices in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park. Yeomans performs abortions at a Kansas City, Kan., clinic. The first version of the rules told providers what drugs and equipment they must stock and set minimum size requirements for procedure and recovery rooms. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment recently revised the rules, paring down the list of drugs and equipment required and dropping specific sizes for rooms. The state published the revised regulations Thursday, and they are set to take effect Nov. 14. A federal judge blocked enforcement of the original regulations until a trial of the doctors' lawsuit. Learning last week that revised regulations would take effect next month, the judge ordered the parties in the lawsuit to analyze the differences between the two sets of rules. "They made some important changes, which is good, but unfortunately, they have left a lot in that is unacceptable," Bonnie Scott Jones, an attorney for the center, said during a telephone interview. "They're still extremely burdensome in multiple ways, so they still do need to be challenged." The revised regulations retain a rule allowing only a physician to dispense drugs, which Jones said would prevent a physician's assistant from giving over-the-counter pain medication. Also kept was a requirement that providers make all records available for review by KDHE, something critics predict will invade patients' privacy.

74

Pilate also cited a requirement that patients remain in recovery rooms for up to an hour after a procedure, based on how far along their pregnancy was. The original rules specified a two-hour wait, but Pilate said even the revised version is onerous. She said the new rules still have "medically unnecessary restrictions." Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's office declined comment. Schmidt is a defendant in the existing lawsuit, as are two county prosecutors in the Kansas City area and the state's secretary of health and environment. KDHE spokeswoman Miranda Steele said the agency hadn't seen the center's announcement. "KDHE will move forward as we can legally. However, we need to do our jobs within the rule of law," she said. KDHE wrote both sets of regulations under a law enacted this year requiring clinics, hospitals and doctors' offices performing five or more elective abortions a month to obtain a special, annual license. It was part of a wave of anti-abortion measures enacted this year across the nation, as abortion opponents capitalized on the election of new, sympathetic Republican governors, such as Kansas' Sam Brownback. The original regulations were temporary because KDHE skipped a public hearing to get them in place by July 1, which they said the law required. The revised set was published after a public hearing in September. Both Yeomans' clinic, Aid for Women, and Hodes' and Nauser's office failed to obtain a license, saying their buildings would need extensive renovations under the original rules. The third abortion provider in Kansas, a Planned Parenthood clinic, also in Overland Park, received a license. Abortion-rights supporters argue the rules are meant to be burdensome enough to discourage doctors and clinics from terminating pregnancies. Abortion opponents argue the rules will protect patients. Mary Kay Culp, executive director of the anti-abortion group Kansans for Life, said the original rules were "reasonable and state of the art," and abortion providers have no legitimate complaints after their concerns were considered.

75

Topeka Capital-Journal (Kansas) September 8, 2011 Thursday Abortion activists clash over clinic rules BYLINE: Tim Carpenter. THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

LENGTH: 865 words Movement by state regulators to make permanent new abortion clinic operating rules Wednesday reflected either an ideological quest to deny women choice of medical care or an overdue bid to save innocent lives through infusion of government oversight. This crossfire of perspectives was on display during a public hearing in Topeka on clinic licensing regulations authored by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Under temporary KDHE policy edicts, two of three clinics in Kansas were denied permits by the state. A flurry of litigation in U.S. District Court stalled imposition of licensing standards sought by the 2011 Legislature, embraced by Gov. Sam Brownback and championed by every anti-abortion organization in the state. KDHE gathered public input - the deadline for comment was 5 p.m. Wednesday - in preparation for a decision about making the controversial regulations permanent. New rules stipulate what medicines and equipment clinics must stock, minimum square footage of janitor closets and temperature of patient recovery rooms. As that deadline neared, pro-choice activists rallied at the Statehouse. "This regulatory process has been a sham, a shame, and an embarrassment for this state and has done nothing to improve the health of the women who live here," said Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization of Women. Operation Rescue president Troy Newman submitted thousands of documents at the KDHE hearing in west Topeka attesting to the proposition abortion clinics in Kansas had for years engaged in political wrangling to escape meaningful regulation. "We have documented a long list of abortion clinic horrors in Kansas, including patient injuries and death, filthy and dangerous clinic conditions, and illegal activity," Newman said. "These new regulations will give enforcement agencies the teeth they need to enforce the laws and protect women and their pre-born babies from abortion abuses."

76

Brownback, a Topeka Republican, urged state lawmakers in January to forward anti-abortion bills to his desk. The House and Senate didn't disappoint, and Brownback signed every measure sent his way. The abortion regulation bill is the subject of a suit filed by the Center for Women's Health in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park and the Aid for Women clinic in Kansas City, Kan. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, which received the lone KDHE license for a clinic in Overland Park, is challenging a budget provision denying the organization federal family planning funding. The American Civil Liberties Union is contesting a new law requiring supplemental insurance policies to cover abortions. The temporary version of clinic licensing regulations adopted by KDHE is due to expire at the end of October. At the Capitol, the Speak for Choice organization created by University of Kansas students expressed solidarity with groups defending reproductive health services. The group's leaders plan to rally students to support pro-choice candidates for public office. "The main point of the rally is to show support for womens' choice," said Leslie Goodwin, of Speak for Choice. "One of the most important things is to discuss what these laws mean." Kathy Ostrowski, legislative director of Kansans for Life, said patient mistreatment and botched abortions don't quickly catch up to medical practitioners because shame felt by injured women inhibited the filing of complaints with state regulators and lawsuits in court. "The same folks who demand abortions be covered by insurance and mainstreamed into government health care emphatically continue to resist inspection and oversight," she said. "They want it one way and not another." She said organizations supportive of the right to an abortion ought to be at the "forefront of hounding state officials to monitor and close woman-injuring, outrageously deficient abortion businesses. They are not." Physician Herbert Hodes, with the Center for Women's Health that was denied a license by KDHE, said the new regulations were concocted to prevent clinics and physicians from performing abortions in Kansas. The motivation has little to do with protecting patients' health, he told KDHE officials. Hodes said the regulations foisted on clinics by KDHE were essentially written by anti-abortion groups. There was no consultation with medical professionals targeted by the regulations, he said. "The Kansas Department of Health and Environment did not use what was available to them," he said. "Why are we reinventing the wheel?"

77

Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's policy director, recited a long list of abortion clinic transgressions in California, Pennsylvania and other states. She said veterinarians treated dogs with more dignity than doctors did at abortion clinics. "These regulations do not set the bar too high," Sullenger said. Julie Burkhart, founder of Trust Woman and a former colleague of slain Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller, said KDHE under Brownback had turned to a set of "prejudicial rules and regulations." "Equitable and fair regulations should reflect the needs of the community and standards set by medical professionals rather than an ideological agenda," she said.

78

APPENDIX D: H.R. 358 sample articles The New York Times Blogs (The Caucus) October 13, 2011 Thursday House Passes Another Bill to Reduce Access to Abortions BYLINE: JENNIFER STEINHAUER SECTION: US; politics LENGTH: 394 words HIGHLIGHT: The bill would prohibit using federal funds made available through the new health care law to buy health insurance policies that offer abortions.

8:22 p.m. | Updated House Republicans have had a laserlike focus on dismantling various forms of federal regulations this month, the centerpiece of their job creation agenda. But on Thursday the chamber pivoted back to another topic that has been the subject of various pieces of legislation this year: how to reduce access to abortions though federal health insurance programs. Under the Protect Life Act, which passed the House 251 to 172 Thursday night, no health insurance policy that offers abortion coverage could be purchased with federal money made available through the new health care law. Current federal law prohibits plans in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program from covering abortion. The new bill would apply the same rule to plans in the newly created health exchanges, which are subsidized with federal government tax credits. The legislation has almost no chance of being brought to the Senate floor, and President Obama is certain to veto it should it ever pass both chambers. The House has brought a few bills aimed at limiting abortion access to the floor since Republicans took control in January. The bill presented Thursday also says that the federal government may not discriminate against health care providers that refuse to provide abortions by refusing them federal funds under the health care law. Opponents of the bill interpret that to mean that health care providers that receive Medicaid or Medicare funds would be permitted, under the law, to refuse abortions even in life threatening

79

conditions, essentially placing the rights of the hospitals to refuse over the existing rights of a patient for an abortion. "I can't even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader. "I just know that you'll see a large number of women on the floor today fighting for women's health issues as well as to point out how savage this is about withholding care for a woman because of this legislation." Andrew Wimer, a spokesman for Representative Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, the sponsor of the bill, said there was no precedent of a doctor refusing an abortion to a woman who later died; they also argue that the point of the bill is to cut off all forms of federal funds for abortion providers, not to deny abortions in the case of a life threatening emergency.

80

The Washington Times October 14, 2011 Friday House bars funds for abortions; Faces opposition from Senate-led Democrats BYLINE: By Paige Winfield Cunningham THE WASHINGTON TIMES SECTION: A, POLITICS; Pg. 4 LENGTH: 662 words Embracing legislation that nearly derailed the health care law last year, the House approved tougher restrictions on federally funded abortions in a move that pleased the GOP's pro-life base but met vigorous opposition from President Obama and Senate Democrats. The bill passed 251-172 and bars federally-subsidized insurance plans from covering abortions. It won support from some Democrats who had voted for the Affordable Care Act despite nearly identical restrictions being stripped from the overhaul when it became law 18 months ago. Although the bill is unlikely to ever make it to the Senate floor, Republicans leaders said they were keeping a promise included in a list of legislative priorities they laid out in 2010, as Democrats accused them of taking the focus off jobs-creating bills. "Listen, we've done four or five solid, jobs-creation bills this week and this bill was part of our Pledge to America," said House Speaker John A. Boehner. "We're keeping our word to the American people and we're going to do it." Under the health care law, a woman can purchase a federally-subsidized plan through a health exchange that covers abortion, but must pay a separate premium without using federal dollars. Under the "Protect Life Act," a woman eligible for subsidized insurance coverage through health exchanges could not purchase any plan that includes coverage for abortions. Instead, she would have to pay for a supplemental plan covering abortion on her own. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican. It also says health care providers cannot be required to participate in abortion-related services, a provision Democrats said could be fatal to women because it would allow providers to refuse to perform an abortion even if a woman's pregnancy was endangering her life. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said it was "savage" of Republicans to propose withholding health care for pregnant women.

81

"When Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed," she said. "It just appalls." Except for the provider provision, the bill mirrors an amendment offered by former Rep. Bart Stupak, Michigan Democrat, during the debate over the new health care law. It provided pro-life Democrats with the restrictions on federal funding of abortion that they wanted before coming on board. Six Democrats teetered in their support when the Senate stripped the Stupak amendment from the legislation. They only relented after Mr. Obama signed an executive order he said would extend an existing ban on federal abortion funding - known as the Hyde Amendment - to the health care law. Calling it a smokescreen, pro-life advocates seethed. Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia Democrat, was one of the six, saying at the time that the executive order allowed him to vote for the health care law by setting up an adequate wall between taxpayer dollars and abortion. He also voted for the Protect Life Act, which Republicans insisted was essential to ensuring federal funds didn't go toward abortion. On Thursday, Mr. Rahall told The Washington Times that he wasn't sure the executive order added any restrictions to the health care law. "I'm not sure it added anything, it more re-enforced," he said, adding, "This bill we're voting on today is consistent with the position I've had all along on the issue, so I'm not going to vote against this today which, in my opinion would be inconsistent and trying to back away from what we did in the Affordable Care Act." Jessica Arons, director of the Women's Health and Rights Program for the Center for American Progress, said the order was no more than a political cover for pro-life Democrats who wanted to vote for the health care law. "It didn't change anything that was already in the bill," she said. "This gave one more layer to the argument that no public money was going to go for abortion funding."

82

The Washington Post February 9, 2011 Wednesday Suburban Edition Abortion debate heats up in House BYLINE: Felicia Sonmez SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A02 LENGTH: 781 words A renewed - and heated - debate about abortion is underway one month into a congressional session that largely has devoted its energy to tackling economic issues. At the core of the discussion this week are two House Republican proposals that would expand restrictions on federal abortion funding. One, H.R. 3 - also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" - would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit taxpayer funding for abortions in all federal programs by codifying the Hyde Amendment, which typically is renewed annually. It also would reinstate a ban on abortion funding in the District, a move that some have contended would infringe on the city's right to self-government. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). The other, H.R. 358 - known as the "Protect Life Act" - would prohibit federal funding for abortions under the new national health-care law and also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions. It is sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Abortion rights advocates contend that the proposals would allow hospitals to refuse to provide abortions in cases where the woman's life is threatened. They also argue that the bills go too far in prohibiting women from using their own money to obtain insurance that covers a range of reproductive care. In addition, the Smith bill sparked controversy through its use of the term "forcible rape," which women's rights groups charged was an attempt to change the definition of rape. The term was dropped from the bill last week. The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display Tuesday as lawmakers sparred ahead of - and during - a hearing on the bill by the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee.

83

As the subcommittee hearing began, about a dozen activists from the organization DC Vote staged a silent protest against the reinstatement of the ban on D.C. abortion funding. Wearing red bandanas over their mouths, the protesters stood among the 70 or so people in the packed committee room for several minutes until they were silently escorted from the room by Capitol Police officers. Testifying at Tuesday's subcommittee hearing were Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Sara Rosenbaum, professor of health law and policy and chairman of the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services; and Family Research Council senior fellow Cathy Ruse. Kellie Fiedorek, a staff attorney for the antiabortion organization Americans United for Life, was among those attending Tuesday's hearing. She said that she believes the current debate over abortion funding is in tune with the debate over jobs and the economy. "I think it's completely in line with the desire to focus on jobs, because we are in a financial crisis, so this ensures that federal taxpayer funds are going to things that are important to the American people and not to something like abortion," Fiedorek said. Just before the hearing, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee and representatives from several abortion rights groups held a news conference at which they denounced the Smith bill as an "unacceptable attack on a woman's right to choose and a distraction from the economic relief that Americans expect from Congress." About a dozen activists from MoveOn.org attended the event and presented a petition that they said contains more than 150,000 signatures from Americans opposed to the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." At a separate news conference before the hearing, Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) and other Senate Democrats took aim at the GOP proposals as "extreme" and charged that they are a distraction from Congress's top priority of kick-starting the economy. Lautenberg said the Smith bill "sounds like a Third World country that's requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces, even if they don't want to do it." On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health is slated to hold a hearing on the "Protect Life Act." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters Tuesday that, so far, neither measure has been scheduled for a vote in the House, but that both "are obviously very important in terms of the priorities we set out initially in our Pledge to America. "These are bills which have to do with the expenditure of government funds, taxpayer dollars for abortion, something that most Americans feel we should do without," Cantor said.

84