Abortion rights advocates in hostile environments face difficult choices. Clare Daniel, Anna Mitchell Mahoney and Grace Riley’s research in Louisiana shows how traditional advocacy approaches fail to sway legislators, while attempts to communicate across differences risk long-term consequences. Gender scholarship must contend with the dilemma of sacrificing broader goals for smaller, immediate impacts in increasingly constrained political landscapes
As the number of pro-natalist policies around the world increases, how are abortion rights advocates navigating ever-more hostile conservative political environments? Our interview-based study of advocacy strategy surrounding abortion-related policies in the Louisiana state legislature shows how advocates navigate a context in which the foremost types of evidence against abortion bans, scientific data showing the deleterious effects of bans on birth outcomes, and personal stories from people negatively affected by the ban, have thus far been ineffective in swaying antiabortion legislators.
In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the US Supreme Court case that overturned the federal right to abortion, Louisiana has implemented one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the United States, with only minimal exceptions for the life of the pregnant person and fatal foetal anomalies. Simultaneously, it has long been among the most dangerous states in which to give birth, with high rates of, and stark racial disparities in, infant and maternal morbidity and mortality. Research inside and outside of Louisiana has documented the ways that banning abortion contributes to these problems.
Louisiana has implemented one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the US and has long been among the most dangerous states in which to give birth
As the relationship between abortion and healthy birth outcomes has become clearer after Dobbs, the siloing of abortion advocacy from maternal and child health advocacy that previously seemed strategic in Louisiana has begun to break down.
Despite the merging of efforts to protect reproductive rights and improve reproductive and maternal health, something for which reproductive justice scholars and activists have long called, anti-abortion legislators appear unmoved by the scientific evidence linking abortion access to better outcomes for birthing women and their babies. Advocates we spoke to on pro- and anti-abortion sides agreed that science did not seem compelling to policymakers in debates about abortion, even if references to Louisiana’s poor maternal health outcomes appeared effective in discussions of bills dealing with other aspects of maternal health, such as increasing access to doula and midwifery care.
Instead, advocates on both sides maintained that personal storytelling was a better strategy for communicating their message to legislators. Abortion testimony is a tried-and-true advocacy strategy for reproductive rights activists, dating back at least to 1972. Ms. magazine's We Have Had Abortions petition from that year, signed by 53 prominent women, is credited with helping to mainstream the push for abortion rights. Throughout US history, abortion storytelling projects have emerged to influence public debate, destigmatise abortion, garner supporters, and demonstrate the importance of abortion to women’s equality and the health of society. The latest of these focuses on the experiences of people living under abortion bans in the post-Dobbs US.
While abortion storytelling can help influence public opinion, even the direst stories may do little to convince antiabortion legislators to loosen or lift the ban
However, our interview data suggests that while this may be an effective strategy for influencing public opinion, even the stories of people direly affected by the abortion ban may not convince antiabortion legislators to loosen or lift the ban. For instance, one of our subjects who testified against a bill that would have amended the ban dismissed these stories by noting that suffering is an important part of life.
Nonetheless, many of our pro-abortion rights subjects suggested that who tells the story may be an important factor. Recruiting physicians from rural Louisiana districts, for instance, to talk about the effects of the abortion ban on their practice, may be more impactful than the testimony of an urban doctor. A previous study of physician testimony in Louisiana legislative debates about abortion showed that all the doctors speaking in support of loosening the ban were women, while those speaking against were majority men. Varying the racial and gender identity of storytellers may affect how likely legislators are to view their perspectives as legitimate.
Even so, many abortion rights advocates and researchers question the wisdom of relying solely on the argument that abortion is healthcare at the expense of framing it as an issue of gender equity, social justice, or bodily autonomy. Some argue that this approach is shortsighted because it emphasises the need for exceptions that are ineffective, while also reinforcing the stigmatisation of certain abortion seekers, and reasons for seeking abortion.
For abortion advocates in places like Louisiana, instead of passing a bill, merely having a civil conversation and convincing a legislator to stay in the room during testimony lays the groundwork for potential progress the following year
But our interviews also illustrated that advocates in places like Louisiana perceive themselves to be so tightly constrained by the political landscape that even the words they choose to describe basic facts relating to abortion can end a conversation before it even begins. In this context, they have had to redefine what constitutes a 'success'. Instead of passing a bill, merely having a civil conversation, making eye contact, and convincing a legislator to stay in the room during testimony lays the groundwork for potential progress the following year.
Despite the perceived futility of their efforts, abortion rights advocates (at least those we interviewed, who have chosen to continue to participate in the legislative process) strive to get their perspectives on the record, sometimes making discursive concessions that cede important linguistic ground, and framing abortion as a healthcare issue, as opposed to a feminist or moral one. Gender scholarship and reproductive rights, health, and justice advocates must contend with how these strategies may have negative long-term effects on abortion access, women’s equality, and healthcare.
No.31 in a Loop thread on Gendering Democracy. Look out for the 🌈 to read more in this series
