The Politics of Problem Definition: Abortion Policy in Republican-Controlled Louisiana

Clare M. Daniel, Anna Mahoney, Grace Riley
{"title":"The Politics of Problem Definition: Abortion Policy in Republican-Controlled Louisiana","authors":"Clare M. Daniel, Anna Mahoney, Grace Riley","doi":"10.3390/socsci13080387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Republican-controlled legislatures across the U.S. initiated draconian abortion restrictions. In order to appeal to anti-abortion policymakers, advocates across the country have strategically separated “maternal and child health” (MCH) issues, such as increased insurance coverage for midwifery and doula care, from issues often labeled as “reproductive rights,” such as access to sex education, birth control, and abortion. Advocates point out this strategic separation has likely contributed overall to the downfall of abortion rights. In this paper, we analyze legislative discourse to understand the legislative challenges advocates face, the strategic separations and allyships they employ, and the implications for other states and reproductive health more broadly. We find that legislators legitimate the same scientific evidence in some contexts while not in others in order to hold onto rhetorical purity within the abortion debate. In their attempts to parse the ideal abortion seeker, conservative legislators create legal ambiguities with serious consequences for healthcare.","PeriodicalId":94209,"journal":{"name":"Social sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social sciences","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Republican-controlled legislatures across the U.S. initiated draconian abortion restrictions. In order to appeal to anti-abortion policymakers, advocates across the country have strategically separated “maternal and child health” (MCH) issues, such as increased insurance coverage for midwifery and doula care, from issues often labeled as “reproductive rights,” such as access to sex education, birth control, and abortion. Advocates point out this strategic separation has likely contributed overall to the downfall of abortion rights. In this paper, we analyze legislative discourse to understand the legislative challenges advocates face, the strategic separations and allyships they employ, and the implications for other states and reproductive health more broadly. We find that legislators legitimate the same scientific evidence in some contexts while not in others in order to hold onto rhetorical purity within the abortion debate. In their attempts to parse the ideal abortion seeker, conservative legislators create legal ambiguities with serious consequences for healthcare.
问题定义的政治学:共和党控制下的路易斯安那州的堕胎政策
在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案判决后,美国各地由共和党控制的立法机构启动了严厉的堕胎限制措施。为了吸引反堕胎政策的制定者,美国各地的倡导者们战略性地将 "母婴健康"(MCH)问题(如增加助产和朵拉护理的保险范围)与通常被称为 "生殖权利 "的问题(如获得性教育、节育和堕胎)分离开来。倡导者指出,这种策略性的分离很可能在整体上导致了堕胎权利的衰落。在本文中,我们分析了立法话语,以了解倡导者所面临的立法挑战、他们所采用的战略分离和同盟关系,以及对其他州和更广泛的生殖健康的影响。我们发现,立法者为了在堕胎辩论中保持修辞上的纯洁性,在某些情况下将相同的科学证据合法化,而在另一些情况下则不然。保守的立法者在试图解析理想的堕胎寻求者时,制造了法律上的歧义,给医疗保健带来了严重后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信