The New States of Abortion Politics
4/5
()
About this ebook
The 2014 Supreme Court ruling on McCullen v. Coakley striking down a Massachusetts law regulating anti-abortion activism marked the reengagement of the Supreme Court in abortion politics. A throwback to the days of clinic-front protests, the decision seemed a means to reinvigorate the old street politics of abortion. The Court's ruling also highlights the success of a decades' long effort by anti-abortion activists to transform the very politics of abortion. The New States of Abortion Politics, written by leading scholar Joshua C. Wilson, tells the story of this movement, from streets to legislative halls to courtrooms.
With the end of clinic-front activism, lawyers and politicians took on the fight. Anti-abortion activists moved away from a doomed frontal assault on Roe v. Wade and adopted an incremental strategy—putting anti-abortion causes on the offensive in friendly state forums and placing reproductive rights advocates on the defense in the courts. The Supreme Court ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 makes the stakes for abortion politics higher than ever. This book elucidates how—and why.
Related to The New States of Abortion Politics
Related ebooks
Uncounted: The Crisis of Voter Suppression in America Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLaboratories against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFrom Parchment to Dust: The Case for Constitutional Skepticism Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAbortion: Interpreting the Constitution Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Street Politics of Abortion: Speech, Violence, and America's Culture Wars Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAbortion--Dissecting the Old and New Arguments Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Immigration Crucible: Transforming Race, Nation, and the Limits of the Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNational Duties: Custom Houses and the Making of the American State Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Goldwater Girls to Reagan Women: Gender, Georgia, and the Growth of the New Right Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWar Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Red State: An Insider's Story of How the GOP Came to Dominate Texas Politics Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWhen the State Speaks, What Should It Say?: How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLearning While Governing: Expertise and Accountability in the Executive Branch Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Case for Parental Choice: God, Family, and Educational Liberty Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsA Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation's Fundamental Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWoman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Lie That Binds Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Summary of Greg Bluestein's Flipped Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of Heather Cox Richardson's To Make Men Free Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSee How They Ran Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsWar and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCommon Sense Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTiny You: A Western History of the Anti-Abortion Movement Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsResponding to the Right: Brief Replies to 25 Conservative Arguments Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAmerican Secession: The Looming Threat of a National Breakup Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Borderland Circuitry: Immigration Surveillance in the United States and Beyond Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsIn Defense of Populism: Protest and American Democracy Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Presidency: Facing Constitutional Crossroads Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Social Science For You
Come As You Are: Revised and Updated: The Surprising New Science That Will Transform Your Sex Life Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5All About Love: New Visions Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Fourth Turning Is Here: What the Seasons of History Tell Us about How and When This Crisis Will End Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Men Explain Things to Me Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why It Matters Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5A People's History of the United States Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Just Mercy: a story of justice and redemption Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Art of Witty Banter: Be Clever, Quick, & Magnetic Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5My Secret Garden: Women's Sexual Fantasies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Dumbing Us Down - 25th Anniversary Edition: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Verbal Judo, Second Edition: The Gentle Art of Persuasion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Weapons of Mass Instruction: A Schoolteacher's Journey Through the Dark World of Compulsory Schooling Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Barracoon: The Story of the Last "Black Cargo" Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Close Encounters with Addiction Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Living Resistance: An Indigenous Vision for Seeking Wholeness Every Day Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Human Condition Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5
Reviews for The New States of Abortion Politics
1 rating0 reviews
Book preview
The New States of Abortion Politics - Joshua C. Wilson
PREFACE
The Professionalization of Abortion Politics
After nearly two decades of being upstaged by other political and Culture War
issues, abortion politics have clearly returned to national prominence. As Daniel Becker, a leader with the National Personhood Alliance, which is dedicated to fighting abortion and related pro-life
issues, recently stated in an interview, I don’t think we’ve seen a more critical election cycle [than 2016]. . . . Everything is coming to a head.
¹ While various factors have contributed to the national resurgence of abortion and the current tension over it, two events in 2015 originating from the fringes of the conflict loom large in defining the popular understanding of contemporary abortion politics.
In July 2015 a group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) emerged on the national scene with the release of a series of edited amateur undercover videos claiming to show that Planned Parenthood engages in the callous and illegal sale of aborted fetal tissue. The videos, which include secretly recorded conversations and images of fetal tissue, came to dominate the discussion of abortion and led to federal congressional hearings on the matter, ongoing state and federal fights to defund Planned Parenthood, and a near government shutdown. Not surprisingly, the videos have also resulted in state and federal lawsuits regarding the legality of the undercover recordings and allegations that CMP engaged in racketeering, fraud, invasion of privacy, and trespassing.
In November 2015 a lone gunman killed three people and wounded nine others in an hours-long standoff with police at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic. The gunman, Robert Lewis Dear, is believed to have referenced the CMP videos by saying, No more baby parts,
after being taken into police custody. Less than two months later, in response to the attack, there was talk in Colorado of introducing a state bill to increase penalties for a person convicted of blocking access to health services that include abortions.
²
These events resonate with the contentious forms the abortion conflict took in the 1980s and 1990s. It was during this time that media coverage of abortion politics was filled with clinic bombings, the murder of abortion providers, sizeable coordinated acts of civil disobedience, and related physical and legal fights between activists. While the rates of large-scale protesting and clinic-related violence dropped off precipitously over the course of the 1990s and into the 2000s, the events of 2015 seem to suggest that they never waned. In fact the CMP videos and the Colorado Springs clinic shooting distort reality and distract from the more significant—in terms of broader policy—fight over abortion. They distort reality because of their inherent drama, and they distract because the most important disputes affecting present and future access to abortion have been principally taking place out of public view for years.
As the clinic-front activism that publicly defined abortion politics in the 1980s and early 1990s fell into decline, a well-organized and sophisticated set of cause lawyers
and related political actors stepped into the vacuum. In doing so they redefined abortion politics. Both sides developed their legal and political resources over time, but earlier in this conflict abortion-rights activists, through standing national organizations like Planned Parenthood, had greater access to such resources. The same was not true for their opponents. While groups like Americans United for Life had been active in national politics for years, the greater antiabortion movement’s elite resources were thin and diffusely distributed across the country.³ Antiabortion advocates who faced legal problems stemming from their activism, for example, were represented in an ad hoc fashion. Simply put, the movement did not have ready and reliable access to significant numbers of well-organized, specifically dedicated, full-time lawyers.
Steps were taken during the 1990s and into the early 2000s to consolidate many of the leading Christian lawyers into a superbly organized and potent institutional structure. The effect was not only to provide activists with better legal resources but also to change the dominant form and personnel engaged in antiabortion activism. These new well-established and well-organized activist lawyers have been able to challenge abortion, not in front of clinics but in front of judges. The antiabortion movement correspondingly moved away from a seemingly doomed frontal assault on Roe v. Wade (1973) and the unpopular clinic-front activism of the 1980s and 1990s and adopted an incremental strategy of fighting abortion at lower jurisdictional and administrative levels. As such the politics of abortion have largely shifted to increasingly restricting abortion access as opposed to directly ending it all at once. With few exceptions this process starts in state legislatures situated in the more socially conservative regions of the country, and it continues in courtrooms as clinics and their supporting legal organizations immediately challenge the constitutionality of these laws. The process then starts anew as the actors on each side of the conflict work within the constraints established or reaffirmed by the court rulings.
The contemporary form of abortion politics now positions antiabortion activists on the offensive, where they get to experiment with the limits of abortion policy in friendly state forums and dictate the parameters of the conflict. This requires reproductive-rights advocates to respond and play defense in the courts. The former plays a long game, hoping that one day a case will reach and survive challenge in what has predominantly been an increasingly conservative US Supreme Court, potentially changing the abortion policy landscape for the entire country. The latter reacts, fighting a war of attrition, hoping to stave off another attack aimed at making the process of obtaining an abortion more costly and difficult, forcibly closing more clinics, requiring providers to present factually dubious or otherwise contested materials to patients, or stripping the ability to perform another form of abortion. This form of abortion politics, to invoke the activist quoted earlier, is coming to a head
with the Supreme Court’s hearing of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016).
Whole Woman’s Health originated in the Texas legislature as the state moved to tighten regulations on abortion clinics and push previously established legal limits. The ultimate effect of these regulations was to force a number of the state’s clinics to close. While Texas was certainly not alone or even the first state legislature to attempt this, it was arguably the first state to garner national attention for its efforts—attention overwhelmingly due to Democratic state senator Wendy Davis’s 2013 filibuster of the state’s first attempt to pass the regulations. Since the case is reflective of a larger form of abortion politics that extends beyond Texas, it stands—however the Supreme Court decides—to significantly reform the future of the conflict.
This book tells the story of the transition to, and the current status of, the contemporary professional, institutional, and incremental politics of abortion that Whole Woman’s Health represents. The story is told largely through the lens of another recent and significant US Supreme Court case, McCullen v. Coakley (2014). McCullen addresses a state’s ability to regulate activism outside clinics by creating no-entry buffer zones around clinic entrances and exits. It is thus a story of the current standing of laws enacted during the street-politics phase of abortion when clinics were arguably on the offensive and their legal resources outmatched those of their opponents. The lawyers involved in McCullen debate the finer points of free speech and have little room or reason to debate abortion’s legality. While this seems far afield from the traditional center of the abortion debate, this substantive distance—coupled with other qualities supplied by the court case—provides a useful means for straddling multiple decades and surveying the various changes in abortion politics and the possible future these changes suggest.
What follows are three interrelated essays built around McCullen v. Coakley that provide simultaneously a broad and a detailed view of contemporary abortion politics. The first essay uses Massachusetts’s turbulent history of attempts to regulate antiabortion activism in front of clinics to introduce McCullen v. Coakley and to expose the reader to the more contentious and visible phase of abortion politics. It goes on to explore the ascent and effect of professional elites as well as the complexity of abortion politics that exists even within a state many simply assume to be liberal and in support of abortion rights.
The second essay focuses on the importance of professional legal resources for the contemporary politics of abortion. If a movement is going to be successful in court, it needs to develop or acquire and then support premier legal talent. The New Christian Right, inclusive of the antiabortion movement, has rapidly and effectively done so as evidenced by a close examination of the lawyers and legal organizations involved in McCullen.
The third and final essay places McCullen v. Coakley within the broader contexts of both the history and the contemporary state of abortion politics in order to discuss the future of the broader conflict. This essay takes a step back to better understand why abortion is a contentious issue in the United States and how the judiciary generally, and the US Supreme Court specifically, has been the formative engine of abortion politics. The essay’s discussion up through Texas House Bill 2 and the resulting case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt demonstrate that while the specifics change over time, the established fundamentals of the political process will likely continue to dictate the future forms of the conflict.
When, on June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a mixed decision in McCullen to strike down the Massachusetts law regulating activism in front of clinics, it did not suddenly and fundamentally change the state and rules of abortion politics for the country. This, however, is far from evidence that the case does not matter. Rather McCullen stands as a potent symbol that reminds the public of the antiabortion movement’s violent past—raising the specter of its possible return in the future—while exemplifying the movement’s successful move toward robust institutional politics. As the case came just one year after the passage of Texas House Bill 2, its symbolic force was magnified. Together these events provided the means for the antiabortion movement to publicly announce, display, and exercise its political maturity and power while referencing a past the mainstream movement may want to avoid. As such, the case and context create an ambiguous victory and a new environment for the antiabortion movement.
McCullen is a product of developments long underway. It marks the reengagement of the Supreme Court in abortion politics; it is central to reinvigorating the public’s interest in the matter, and by extension it has helped reintroduce abortion as a leading issue in electoral politics. This momentum and the resulting political opportunities for the antiabortion movement are, however, accompanied by pronounced risks. The movement’s relative success has come through the combination of a viscerally invigorating issue, the development of a range of professional institutions that competently maneuver in various political forums, and over the last two decades the ability to operate largely out of the public eye. Now that abortion and other women’s issues
are once again moving toward the center stage of national politics, the antiabortion movement’s success stands to reinvigorate its opponents’ efforts, potentially touching off a new wave of contentious politics.
PART I
VIOLENCE, LAW, AND ABORTION POLITICS
When John Salvi was identified as the lone shooter in a string of deadly attacks on three abortion clinics, a former associate