The Infrastructure of The Pro-Choice Movement - Research Paper Example

The Infrastructure of the Pro-Choice Movement Morals and politics are inextricably intertwined in the abortion issue. On the morality hand, pro-life activists view abortion as murder, even though some allow shades of grey as to when a fetus is viable. For pro-life activists, the politics involve protecting the vulnerable and giving a voice to the unborn. For pro-choice activists, the morality of the issue centers on viability of an unborn baby (at what point does it become a person), and again there are shades of grey regarding days, weeks and months of pregnancy. Politically, the issue has been focused and re-focused on the word “choice” as it relates to a woman’s choice about what to do with her body, attempting to steer away from morality and keep the choice private. Prior to the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-choice movement was decentralized and individually based rather than being a formal, structured activist group. When compared to the civil rights movement, pro-choice had few main leaders and no special interest groups (beyond, perhaps, Planned Parenthood). The civil rights movement had several recognized leaders and organizations, although there was still spontaneous direct action by individuals. Pro-choice worked for change on the outside of the overall women’s movement, and used medical professionals to mobilize both the medical community and public opinion. After 1973, both sides of the abortion issue began to become more formally politicized and centrally organized, with both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party adopting official platforms on the subject in 1976. Organizations such as NARAL and the National Right to Life Committee were established to carry on activism agendas in the years since 1973. Both sides of the debate have won victories, but the pro-choice movement has seen its victories slowly erode through several conservative Presidential administrations. Leading Organizations in the Pro-Choice Movement It is helpful to the discussion of how the pro-choice movement emerged to know a little about two of the biggest pro-choice organizations: Planned Parenthood and NARAL (also known as National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, National Abortion Rights Action League, National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and Pro-Choice America). These advocacy and lobbying groups are strongly supported by feminists, and have been instrumental in passing abortion-rights laws. Both of them have grown significantly more visible since Roe v. Wade, and have been instrumental in carrying on the abortion-rights debate. NARAL was founded in 1969 and developed offices in Washington DC in 1975 to be closer to federal lobbying and policy-making. Its lobbying efforts have not always been successful, because in 1977 the Hyde amendment passed banning Medicaid funding for abortions for low-income women. In 1989, the Supreme Court decision Webster v. Reproductive Health Services threatened the validity of Roe v. Wade, despite massive protests from NARAL activists. By the late 1990s, NARAL was becoming more globally active and shifted its focus slightly from strictly abortion rights to include reproductive rights for women all over the world (NARAL, 2009). Really, NARAL was not a factor in the pro-choice movement before the passage of Roe v. Wade, because it had only a handful of members before 1973 and little political or grass-roots support. Planned Parenthood has always been about the reproductive rights of women, which included abortion throughout its history but more so in later years. The organization began in 1916 when Margaret Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. At the time, the Comstock Laws were in full force (this will be discussed in a moment). Despite being harassed and arrested, Sanger pushed on, and in 1936, the laws of New York, Connecticut and Vermont were amended to say that talking about birth control and family planning was no longer obscene (repeal of the Comstock Laws). It was 30 years later before married couples across the nation finally had the right to obtain birth control from doctors, however. The Food and Drug Administration approved the Pill as a contraceptive device on May 9, 1960. In the mid-1960s, Lyndon Johnson made family planning a national priority in the war on poverty, and during the Nixon era, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that family planning services should be made available to all. After Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood further relaxed abortion laws in 1976 through Planned Parenthood v. Missouri, which struck down requirements that a woman obtain parental and spousal agreement before she could obtain an abortion. The Reagan and Bush years saw birth control rights in general and abortion rights start to erode, and Planned Parenthood and other civil rights groups began to mobilize in greater numbers around this time. In 1989, joining with NOW and other groups, mass protests and mobilization efforts involved more than 2 million people nationwide. The Clinton years saw a huge increase in protests and violence, all of which was extensively covered on national television and pro-life activists began to be seen as terrorists and zealots. When George W. Bush was elected, some ground was lost by Planned Parenthood and related organizations when sex education money was spent on abstinence education rather than to fund contraception. (The Planned Parenthood has reams of other information, but not all of it is pertinent to this paper.) The National Organization of Women (NOW) has been with these other two organizations all along the way, but even though it supports feminism and reproductive rights, NOW is a broader-based organization that concerns itself with civil rights in general, with reproductive rights as one of its branches. Freeman (1999) makes an interesting point about NOW, and her succinct words are worthy of being quoted in their entirety. NOW’s concept of a well-run organization was not one in which everyone participated, but one in which everyone contributed to the tasks of the movement. The concept of democracy was not one in which everyone had a say in all decisions, but one in which any who wanted to could have a say. Equality meant equal respect, not equal influence. Leadership was good, not bad (229). Without the help of NOW, NARAL would have been hard pressed to grow beyond a handful of members, and certainly Planned Parenthood has used the resources of NOW to mobilize large groups of activists on several occasions. The aims and goals of NOW are different from the other two, but they are compatible. By contributing to the tasks of the women’s movement, Planned Parenthood and NARAL provide leadership in the pro-choice and birth control rights issue. Early Events that Sparked the Pro-Choice Movement Early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were against abortion because at the time it was unsafe. They wrote that the prevention of pregnancy was key to women’s freedom, and if women were emancipated there would be no need for abortion (Lewis, n.d.). Medical doctors of the time also opposed abortion as unsafe, but also added that abortion should be illegal because it caused women to overlook duties imposed upon her by the marriage contract (Law.jrank.org, 2009). This thinking would change over the next 100 years as the United States began to pay attention to women’s rights and we grew closer to legalizing abortion. In the 1870s, the Comstock laws made contraception illegal and declared that talking about family planning and contraception was obscene (Planned Parenthood, 2009). Specifically, the Comstock laws targeted obscene literature and pornographic materials, but it also pointed to birth control and information about birth control as obscene, as well as all information about sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases. Anthony Comstock did not try to hide the fact that his agenda included banning materials about family planning. He lobbied the New York State Legislature and the national Congress to pass a series of sweeping obscenity and vice laws. It would be almost 100 years before these laws were overturned in their entirety. Abortion law up to the 1930s was extremely strict but very seldom enforced. Illegal abortions abounded, and many women died from these unsafe procedures. Laws changed to say that abortion was illegal except to save the life of the mother. Only therapeutic abortions were legally performed, and all others were illegal. Physicians were allowed to recommend therapeutic abortions, and some more liberal doctors recommended abortions for women for other than strict life-saving reasons. Thus, “Abortion laws did not prevent abortions. They only obscured them from the public view” (Gross, 1997, p. 160). These facts gave the pro-choice movement the foundation for an argument: Abortion is strictly limited, but women are getting abortions anyway through unsafe and illegal procedures; we should legalize abortion to save these women’s lives. Beyond that line of thinking, the issue became about the rights of women, and abortion law became a civil rights issue, far beyond the false frame set up by the pro-choice movement that abortion is a medical procedure and private conversation. Two events are cited by Planned Parenthood (2009) as being key moments in the abortion-rights debate. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, pregnant women took the drug Thalidomide and ended up with severely deformed babies. Abortion was illegal at the time, and so the case of one particular woman, Sherri Finkbine, reached the media and started to stir up debate. In 1966 a rubella epidemic further heightened the public’s interest in legalizing abortion, because many deformed babies were born because of the epidemic. In 1970, Hawaii repealed laws criminalizing abortion, and Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, New York began to offer legal abortions through the 24th week of pregnancy. At the same time, national polls revealed that more than half of all Americans supported the legalization of abortion. The cultural moment was right for the pro-choice movement to mobilize public sentiment, the medical community, and lawmakers to overturn abortion laws. Development of the Pro-Choice Movement Early on in the social movements of the 1960s, direct action by small groups of people were very common, along with carefully orchestrated protest marches as are staged today, and the more subtle media campaigns that happen on a regular basis now. The 1960 sit-in staged by the North Carolina university students to protest lunch counter discrimination is often cited as a seminal moment in the history of social movements. It is also used as a beacon for other protest organizations: the power of a handful of people taking direct, non-confrontational action changed the course of the movement. The lunch-counter protest was planned briefly by these students, outside the control and input of the greater civil rights movement leadership. It was an organic moment, spontaneous. The pro-choice movement, in the 1960s, took a slightly different approach in being quiet and moving steady but sure against laws banning abortion, searching for repeal rather than reform (Staggenborg, 1991). While activists worked directly lobbying lawmakers and the public, there were no direct actions of note such as the 1960 sit-in. Prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the pro-choice movement was growing individual by individual and had no definite boundaries as a movement. Activists used both direct-action tactics and conventional systems to mobilize grass-roots support and influence the system (Staggenborg 1991). At the same time, activists lobbied lawmakers and the public by framing the question as a women’s rights issue, and attempted to “create a new social consciousness” and “bring the abortion issue to public attention” (p. 54). There was a push in the legislature to relax abortion laws and make it legal and much campaigning finally led to the Supreme Court decision, reflecting national sentiment (Planned Parenthood, 2009). Pro-choice activists were aiming for abortion reform and ended up with a landmark decision (Gross, 1997). Early on, restrictive laws made it illegal to even publically (or privately) discuss abortion. Activism consisted of “teas held at churches to discuss change in the laws and endless trips to the state legislatures by middle-aged women with long volunteer careers” (Staggenborg, 1991, p. 29). These early activists attempted to influence laws through lobbying and supporting laws that would test abortion bans, and worked from a women’s rights stance. There was little formal organization, no paid staff or central office, and so the movement was decentralized and without an umbrella leadership. These decentralized activists were not motivated by a formal political platform, and they were not necessarily motivated by the women’s movement directly. In Illinois, for instance, abortion rights activists were working on the abortion movement before there was a strong showing for the women’s rights movement overall, and reforms were conservative and taken one step at a time. In addition, there was little direct confrontational action. Public sentiment weighed in favor of reform of the abortion laws, so little drama was needed to mobilize individual women to participate in the movement (Staggenborg, 1991). The pro-life movement also really began after the passage of Roe v. Wade. Up until that point, there was no need to lobby or campaign against abortion laws; they were already in place. In the late 1960s, several groups such as the National Right to Life Committee and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life started to form, with both becoming full-fledged organizations in 1971 and 1973 respectively. These organizations formed with the idea of national agendas to disseminate educational materials and information, and attracted members after being formed. A key moment for the pro-life movement came in 1972, when a massive public relations campaign culminated in a march in Michigan which defeated a referendum that would have loosened anti-abortion laws. The power of the pro-life organization was clearly seen in this instance (Staggenborg, 1991). The concerted efforts from the pro-choice activists which brought about the Roe v. Wade decision woke pro-life activists up, but not in time to block the decision. The pro-choice movement mobilized the medical community and grass-roots organizations across the United States and in some ways caught pro-life activists off guard. The Supreme Court essentially set aside the viability issue for first and second trimester pregnancies, and left the decision in the hands of a woman and her doctor. Pro-life activists then had to mobilize to protect the life of the unborn child (Gross, 1997). Politically, after the passage of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, the Republican Party developed a pro-life platform. The Democratic Party developed a pro-choice platform at the same time to continue the debate. Before this time, neither party had taken a firm political stand on the issue, but since then the abortion debate has been fought in every election from Federal to local politicians (Planned Parenthood, 2009). The historical foundations of the abortion debate shape the types of people who are involved in activism today. It is just recently that the abortion issue has become clearly divided between political parties and religious groups which have become heavily involved in the issue, but pro-choice arises out of politics formed by the feminist movement. Educated young women are typically pro-choice, and they have mobilized their political sophistication to keep abortion unrestricted. Pro-life activists mobilize their moral sophistication to make abortion laws more restrictive. The next section examines each of these “typical” activists in more detail. What Kind of Person is an Activist in the Abortion Issue? The pro-choice movement’s “mothers” were middle aged, middle income women who had time to travel to Washington to lobby congressmen. Quickly, the movement sought to mobilize young, college age women, who would be most affected by changes in abortion laws. Springing up out of the 1960s, many young women were looking for women’s rights or civil rights causes to champion, and so became interested in the abortion issue (Staggenborg 1991). It is interesting to look at the current “typical profile” of a pro-life versus a pro-choice person (Gross, 1997). Please refer to Appendix A of this document for a look at the statistics during this discussion. The pro-life activist could be either male or female; is typically close to retirement age; earns less than $50,000 in annual income; has probably attended at least some college; is overwhelmingly Catholic and votes Republican. The pro-choice activist is usually a female in her mid-forties; has attended college and often has an advanced degree; is at least middle class, and probably earns more than $75,000 in annual income; is Protestant, Jewish, or agnostic and votes overwhelmingly Democrat. These numbers paint a portrait of opposites. Activists on either side of the issue are demographically as well as philosophically opposed to one another. There is also an interesting contrast between the sophistication of these “typical” activists, both morally and politically. The typical pro-life activist is conservative politically and regarding religion, and would thus seem to be morally sophisticated; he or she has not attained an advanced college degree and is usually older, so it could be assumed he is not as politically sophisticated as his counterpart. The pro-choice activist is liberal by each measure, and could be assumed to be more politically sophisticated than her counterpart and less morally grounded. It would also appear that since three-quarters of pro-choice activists are women, keeping abortion legal truly is a “women’s issue” whereas restricting abortion is a mixed-gender issue (split about 50-50 male and female activists). Thus, from the statistics one could infer that anti-abortion activists are more concerned with the family or whole-society aspects of the issue, and pro-abortion activists focus only on the woman’s point of view. (These are assumptions and interpretations, of course; each person is different.) Gross (1997) theorizes that politically sophisticated activists are less morally competent, and the empirical statistics would seem to bear this out. Taking a broader social view implies less political sophistication. It’s not that pro-choice activists are unsophisticated; their activism takes the form of grass-roots movement toward political change, rather than the top-down approach of the pro-choice activist. And, one cannot imply by these statistics that the pro-choice activist is immoral; her morality arises out of political ideals rather than religious ideals. Pro-choice activists campaigned in the 1960s to young college women, and the recruitment worked (Staggenborg, 1991). These grass-roots constituents continue to support the movement into the 1990s and 2000s, and abortion legislation is voted upon along clear party lines. Pro-life activists are coming from a religious or moral foundation, and religious concerns shape the thinking on that side of the issue. The pro-choice activist campaigns from a political viewpoint, and religion and morality take a supporting role. Concluding Remarks These different ways of looking at the issue affect what kinds of collective action any individual activist will participate in. It is interesting to further look at types of activism on both sides of the issue (Gross, 1997). Militant activism, communal activism, and solitary and financial activism all play a part in a person’s interaction with either side of the movement (Freeman, 1999). Pro-life activists currently do more (militant activism) to promote the movement, including demonstrating, counseling pregnant women, and recruiting new members. Pro-choice activists tend to lend more financial support to the movement, and typically engage in communal activism over direct action, though not always. Pro-life activists tend to keep a single focus on the issue, and don’t dilute their activities with broader concerns such as reproductive rights or the civil rights of women (Gross, 1997). Pro-choice organizations, such as NOW and NARAL, have stepped back from a single focus and currently view abortion rights as part of the bigger issues of reproductive rights and civil rights (Staggenborg, 1991; NARAL.org, 2009). The pro-choice movement did not emerge from established institutions in the government, but rather from a grass-roots mobilization of community organizations and mobilization of the medical community (Freeman, 1999; Gross, 1997). Protests by activists got the attention of lawmakers, who listened to the argument that abortion is a private medical decision. While liberal politicians supported abortion rights in the past, it wasn’t until the major protests of the women’s movement that change occurred. Abortion rights are still endorsed by a great majority of the medical community, which is one big reason abortion is still legal (Staggenborg, 1991). Recent law changes have grown closer to changing the broad legality of abortion, but the Roe v. Wade decision is still in effect. Until the medical community mobilizes behind the pro-life activists, it will be difficult to overturn (Freeman, 1999). Mobilizing activists’ founding institutions brings power to each side of the movement as well; because the abortion issue has become clearly demarcated on political and religious lines, the power of the bigger institution (church or political party) can be tapped into by collective activists to lend support. Republican Party political candidates tend to be pro-life; Democratic Party candidates tend to be pro-choice. Thus, an activist does not need to participate in collective actions in order to further his or her views on abortion; a simple vote becomes an action. The abortion issue did not become completely politicized until the Republican Party and the Democratic Party developed specific platforms on their respective stances. Now, it is clearly a party line, and each time a conservative or liberal Congress takes its seat in Washington, one or the other side of the issue gets nervous. Throughout its long history, the moral, political, and civil rights issues have always been at odds with each other (Staggenborg, 1991; Lewis, n.d; Freeman, 1999). Reform of the abortion laws led to sweeping repeal, which has been eroded ever since by grass-roots activism, militant and direct action organizations, and campaigns in the media. It is an issue that almost everyone has an opinion on, one way or the other, and many people are well-versed in their side of the argument and completely convinced of the validity of their side’s reasoning. Returning to the statistical portrait of the “typical” activist painted earlier (Gross, 1997), the morally sophisticated person is anti-abortion, and the politically sophisticated person is pro-choice. Pro-choice activists would like to avoid talking about the morality of the issue, and keep the debate in the political or personal arena (meaning it is a “women’s issue”). The abortion issue cannot really be separated from the moral issue, however, which is one reason there continues to be debate and change. Pro-choice activists stay firmly grounded in morality, and their collective actions reflect a grass-roots approach to change, targeting women and families first, and then moving up the political ladder (Gross, 1997). Some of these grass-roots actions have not been helpful to the anti-abortion movement. Some groups opened crisis- pregnancy centers in which women were directly counseled against abortion which is against the letter of the law. The pro-choice movement uses inflammatory rhetoric to describe these clinics: These bogus clinics, usually lacking professional medical services, are designed to lure women with unintended pregnancies and intimidate them into not having abortions…. [The] clinics often deliberately frighten and mislead women about their options, lie about pregnancy test results, and discourage the use of reliable birth control measures (Planned Parenthood, 2009). In truth, the pro-life activists are consistent with their morality, and most are not interested in frightening and misleading women; it’s a matter of providing information. Clinic bombings such as the Christmas Day incident in 1984 are often touted as evidence that all pro-life activists are violent terrorists (Gross, 2007). As with most activists, few are willing to go to violent extremes; most are simply mobilizing in non-violent, non-threatening ways to get the message across. This, too, is an extreme measure on the part of a few, and has hampered protest efforts for many others who have the right to assemble peacefully. Inflammatory language does not describe all crisis pregnancy counselors, nor should such sweeping statements be made. Likewise, the pro-life side of the issue should not label doctors as baby-killers during their protests of abortion clinics. This sort of militant mobilization makes the issue more divisive and blocks positive change (Gross, 1997). Such actions distract from the basic issue of whether abortion should be allowed, even under restricted circumstances, and lends credence to the pro-choice thinking that “medical procedures” should be kept private, between a woman and her doctor (Planned Parenthood, 2009). Anti-abortion counseling and clinic bombings are actions that call into question the true “morality” of pro-life activism in general, and allow politically-minded people to dismiss the moral issue out of hand. Overall, the pro-choice movement grew out of humble beginnings and has become far more organized and centralized over the years (Staggenborg, 1991). In response, the pro-life movement has also used its established structures such as the Catholic Church as springboards for protest and mobilization. From the days of middle-aged women holding teas to discuss the issue to the election of pro-choice political leaders, much has happened along the way. Appendix A Pro-life and pro-choice activists: demographic profile. From Gross, 1997, page 168. Pro-life Pro-choice Age (1992) 53 46 Education (%) High School 24 6 College 46 39 Graduate 30 55 Income (annual) (%) < $25,000 24 9 $25-50,000 40 26 $50-75,000 12 22 > $75,000 24 43 Gender Male 42 22 Female 58 78 Religion (%) Catholic 72 6 Protestant 11 25 Jewish 0 29 Other Christian 17 8 Agnostic/Atheist 0 32 Political affiliation (1992) (%) Democratic 3 74 Republican 90 17 Independent 5 5 Years in organization 5.4 4.1 References Freeman, Jo. “A Model for Analyzing the Strategic Options of Social Movement Organizations.” Waves of Protest: Social Movements Since the Sixties. Jo Freeman and Victoria Johnson, eds. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999. Gross, Michael L. Ethics and Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Law.jrank.org (online law wiki). “Comstock Law of 1873.” Accessed 8 April 2009 from < http://law.jrank.org/pages/5508/Comstock-Law-1873.html>. Lewis, Jone Johnson. “Women’s History: Abortion History.” About.com, n.d. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . NARAL.org. “Key Moments in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s History.” 2009. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Planned Parenthood main website. 2009. Accessed 8 April 2009 from . Staggenborg, Suzanne. The Pro-Choice Movement. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Read More