Abstract
As the United States abortion debate continues into its fifth decade since Roe v. Wade,1 pro-life groups are increasingly aiming to align themselves and their messages with classically “feminist” or “liberal” interests. Pro-life groups now heavily focus on women’s rights as a platform for advancing their ideological arguments and achieving legislative measures that ultimately restrict access to abortion. The use of such platforms allows anti- abortion sentiment to appear more palatable to a broader swath of women while enabling the pro-life movement to soften its image and improve its appeal.
This strategy, which I will refer to as pro-life “destigmatization,” manifests itself most clearly in law and politics, wherein pro-life advocates frame their anti-abortion arguments in broadly appealing, women’s rights-oriented terms. This ironic alignment is demonstrated through three examples that collectively represent an underlying effort to destigmatize anti- abortion reform and portray it as a branch of women’s rights: 1) advocacy for the expansion of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), particularly in the context of the recently decided Supreme Court case of Young v. United Parcel Service;22) political advocacy organizations’ support for pro-life women candidates and the creative framing of anti- abortion legislation in election campaigns; and 3) anti-abortion legislation that restricts abortions specifically performed for sex-selection purposes. In each of these examples, there is a deliberate appeal to ideals many women alreadyvalue such that, in theory, there would not be much of a leap from supporting feminist concerns to supporting the pro-life movement writ large. This connection is so close because, as each of these example shows, the ultimate goal of chipping away at abortion rights is portrayed as secondary, if it is even acknowledged at all. Rather, the pro-life presence is positioned as advocating something different from abortion, be it pregnancy rights or tax reform.