Framing Abortion Access for the Abortion Grays:
Moving the Middle Toward Wider Support for Abortion Rights in the United States
A Capstone Project
Submitted to
The Faculty of the Public Communication Graduate Program
School of Communication
American University
Washington, D.C.
In Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts
By Trina Stout
April 2011
Copyright © 2011.
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced
or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording or by an information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the
copyright owner.
To obtain permission to use materials from this work,
please submit a written request via email to: trinastout@gmail.com.
2 Acknowledgements
Warmest thanks to the people I interviewed for their time, thoughts, and insight.
Jessica Arons
Director, Women’s Health & Rights Program
Center for American Progress
Laura MacCleery
Director of Government Relations
Center for Reproductive Rights
Nancy Belden
Partner
Belden Russonello & Stewart
Ted Miller
Communications Director
NARAL Pro-Choice America
Kate Childs Graham
Communications Director
Choice USA
Caitlin Murphy Glasscock
Senior Analyst
Lake Research Partners
Lanae Erickson
Deputy Director, Culture Initiative
Third Way
David Nolan
Communications Director
Catholics for Choice
Anna Greenberg
Senior Vice President
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research
Molly O’Rourke
Partner
Hart Research
Vince Hall
Vice President,
Public Affairs & Communications
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
Lydia Stuckey
Senior Associate, Programs and Policy
Reproductive Health Technologies Project
Eily Hayes
President
Hickman Analytics
Harrison Hickman
Founder
Hickman Analytics
Lorraine Kenny
Public Education Director
ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
Gustavo Suarez
Director of Communications
Guttmacher Institute
Tait Sye
Director of Media Relations
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Judy Waxman
Vice President,
Health & Reproductive Rights
National Women’s Law Center
Special thanks also to Joseph Graf, Matthew Nisbet, Holly Richmond, and Brian Stout for
their invaluable feedback as my paper evolved.
3 Abstract
Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the United States, yet also one
of the most heavily regulated and difficult to access. Pro-choice groups and abortion-rights foes
compete for the minds and votes of Abortion Grays -- the majority of Americans who support
legal abortion with restrictions and who swing elections. The goal of this paper is to identify
frames for the issue of abortion that move Grays to favor abortion access across a broader range
of circumstances. These frames work by activating prior beliefs, values, and attitudes that lean in
a pro-choice policy direction. I find that 1) Frames are most effective when preceded by a
message acknowledging the complexity of people’s feelings about abortion. 2) Frames
demonstrated to move Grays to support abortion access are Government Intrusion, Situational,
Prevention, and Women’s Safety. 3) I also propose two new frames: Responsible Parenthood and
Free Market.
4 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 6
Goal of Paper.............................................................................................................................................7
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................7
Methods .....................................................................................................................................................8
Organization of Paper................................................................................................................................9
Section 1: An Overview of Abortion in the United States......................................................... 9
Section 2: Understanding the Abortion Grays......................................................................... 12
Identifying the Grays: American Public Opinion on Abortion Legality.................................................12
Demographics: Who Are the Abortion Grays? .......................................................................................14
Attitudes: How Do Grays Think about Abortion? ..................................................................................15
Section 3: Framing...................................................................................................................... 18
What is Framing, Why is it Important, and How does it Work?.............................................................18
A Note on Anti-Abortion Frames............................................................................................................21
Section 4: Established Frames for Abortion Grays ................................................................. 21
Overview .................................................................................................................................................21
Complexity-Plus......................................................................................................................................22
Moral Complexity vs. Complexity .....................................................................................................23
Government Intrusion..............................................................................................................................24
Situational................................................................................................................................................26
Prevention................................................................................................................................................28
Women’s Safety ......................................................................................................................................31
Section 5: New Frames for Abortion Grays ............................................................................. 33
Responsible Parenthood ..........................................................................................................................33
Free Market .............................................................................................................................................35
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 36
References.................................................................................................................................... 38
5 Introduction
In the first three months of 2011, state legislators across the country introduced 916 bills
related to reproductive health; 56 percent aimed to restrict abortion access, up from 38 percent
the year before. Proposed restrictions included longer waiting periods, scientifically inaccurate
counseling, mandatory ultrasounds, restricted insurance coverage of abortion, and 20-week
abortion bans (Guttmacher Institute, 2011b). Federal legislators tried to ban insurance coverage
of abortion services in the new health care system, as well as eliminate tax credits and deductions
for abortion in private insurance plans. An attempt to cut off public funds to Planned Parenthood,
none of which go toward abortion services, nearly shut down the federal government. When it
comes to abortion access today, reproductive health and rights advocates are playing defense at
both the state and federal levels.
Restrictions like those above dismay the 25 percent of Americans who believe abortion
should be generally available, and delight the 19 percent who want to see abortion made illegal.
It is unclear how these types of restrictions resonate with the majority of Americans -- some 54
percent -- who favor legal abortion in certain cases (Gallup, 2011). This middle group talks about
abortion as being “legal, but” “legal, except” or “legal only in a few cases” (Belden, 2011). They
are known as the Abortion Grays, and they are important because their votes decide elections.
And elections impact abortion policy.
Women have always and will always obtain abortions. We can either create a society that
supports dignified, accessible, safe, legal abortion services, or we can create a society that
shames women, imposes barriers to their health care, forces a handful to unwillingly continue
pregnancies, and risks the health of desperate others who turn to unsafe abortions. Just because
6 abortion is legal does not mean that it is accessible or safe. Recent reminders of this sad reality
include a pregnant Texas teen who had her boyfriend step on her stomach, a pregnant Michigan
teen who had her boyfriend beat her stomach with a baseball bat, and the women who suffered
botched abortions at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Philadelphia clinic (Associated Press, 2005;
McCullough, 2011; Warner, 2006).
Goal of Paper
The goal of this paper is to identify frames (central organizing ideas) for the complex
issue of abortion that shift the conversation, moving more Grays to favor abortion access across a
greater number of conditions and cases. William Saletan meticulously documented the frames of
the 1980s and 1990s in his book Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War
(2003). What new successful frames have emerged since then?
This paper is about activating beliefs that support pro-choice policies. As Eily Hayes,
president of public opinion research firm Hickman Analytics, observed:
I think it’s more about engagement and awareness than persuasion. People have basic
principles that are pro-choice, but when you get down to specifics, it’s easier to make it
not about rights … You’re not going to change someone’s mind on something really
fundamental, but you might raise their awareness or help them think of it in a different
way (2011).
Summary of Findings
1. Frames are more effective if they first acknowledge the complexity of people’s
feelings about abortion. I call this Complexity-Plus, because it can complement any
7 frame. It is a framework, not a frame.
2. Frames known to move Grays to support abortion access across a greater number of
circumstances are: Government Intrusion, Situational, Prevention, and Women’s
Safety.
3. Two new frames to effectively engage Abortion Grays and foster greater support for
abortion access are:
a. Responsible Parenthood. This frame would increase support for abortion
access generally because Abortion Grays approve of the right to plan one’s
family, value good parenting, and care about the wellbeing of children.
b. Free Market. This restriction-specific frame would increase support for
health insurance coverage of abortion because Abortion Grays dislike the
government manipulating private markets and limiting individuals’
purchasing options.
Methods
To identify frames intended for Abortion Grays (as opposed to specifically targeted at the
pro-choice base), I reviewed previous literature on abortion discourse, the public materials of
pro-choice advocacy organizations, and the materials from campaigns opposing abortionrestricting ballot initiatives. I also interviewed relevant experts. Because media frames drive
public discussion (Price, Nir, & Cappella, 2005), and advocacy organizations drive media frames
in the abortion debate (Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, & Rucht, 2002), I interviewed the
communications directors at several national pro-choice advocacy groups. I also interviewed top
pollsters who have studied public opinion on abortion and have unique insight into the thoughts,
8 beliefs, and attitudes of the Abortion Grays. I combined the collective wisdom of the
interviewees with the literature and with real-world examples to identify the four established
frames. I based the two new frames on my understanding of the values and attitudes of the
Grays. This paper will only identify frames; it does not address the best vehicles through which
to communicate them.
Organization of Paper
The paper is organized as follows: Section 1 sets the historical context for the debate with
an overview of abortion and abortion policy in the United States. Section 2 reviews demographic
and attitudinal characteristics of the Abortion Grays in order to understand which frames work
with them and why. Section 3 defines framing and establishes its significance. Section 4
highlights the importance of acknowledging the audience’s discomfort with abortion and reviews
the frames that have moved Abortion Grays to support abortion access in the past: Government
Intrusion, Situational, Prevention, and Women’s Safety. Section 5 introduces the new frames
Responsible Parenthood and Free Market that I believe could effectively move Grays in the
future.
Section 1: An Overview of Abortion in the United States
Abortion is one of the most commonly performed medical procedures in the United
States, more common than wisdom teeth removal (Dean, 2007). Abortions occur in every state -red and blue, coastal, Midwestern, and Southern, affluent and poor, religious and secular. “There
are probably few adults in this country who are not related to, or the friend of, someone who has
had an abortion” (Kessler, Dillon, Kott, & Solomon, 2005).
9 Among American women, almost half of pregnancies are unintended; four in 10 of these
end in abortion, with an estimated 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008. By age 45, at
current rates, about one-third of American women will have had an abortion (Guttmacher
Institute, 2011a). Yet abortion is also one of the most regulated elements of health care
(Boonstra, Gold, Richards, & Finer, 2006).
An exhaustive global study of abortion by the World Health Organization and the
Guttmacher Institute found that criminalizing the procedure does not affect abortion rates; it only
serves to make abortion a riskier procedure for women (Cohen, 2007). Gustavo Suarez,
communications director of the Guttmacher Institute, emphasizes: “The reality is that the legal
status of abortion doesn’t impact the incidence of abortion. It just impacts the safety of the
procedure … Making it illegal simply doesn’t stop it” (Suarez, 2011).
Despite this, ever since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision (and its
companion case Doe v. Bolton) legalized abortion, abortion-rights opponents have sought to
make the procedure illegal again, and to restrict access to it in the interim. Abortion-rights
supporters have fought to keep abortion legal and accessible. See Table 1 for a brief history.
Table 1. History and Context: Abortion and Abortion Policy in the United States
1940s-1950s: 200,000 to 1.3 million illegal abortions each year. Many women die of
septic infection or severe blood loss. Doctors begin to see illegal abortion as a public
health issue.
1953: Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Female: 90 percent of premarital
pregnancies terminated; and one in five women have had an abortion while married.
1960: The American Medical Association notes that laws prohibiting abortion are
unenforceable.
Mid-1960s: Abortion law reform and repeal efforts gain steam.
1965: Supreme Court’s Griswold v. Connecticut grants married couples the right to
10 contraception.
1967: The Journal of the American Medical Association endorses abortion law reform; 87
percent of U.S. doctors approve of liberalizing anti-abortion laws.
1969: Jane, an underground network of abortion services, is established. National
Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) is founded.
1970: New York, Hawaii, and Washington legalize abortion.
1971: More than half of Americans support legalizing abortion.
1972: Supreme Court’s Eisenstadt v. Baird grants single people the right to contraception.
1973: Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade legalizes abortion, finding that the constitutional
right to privacy encompasses a woman’s decision (in consultation with her doctor) to have
an abortion. The Court allows for states to ban abortion after viability. Companion case
Doe v. Bolton permits post-viability abortions if the health or life of the woman is at risk.
Anti-Roe backlash begins immediately. National Right to Life Committee established,
calls for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.
1976: Hyde Amendment bans federal (Medicaid) funding of abortions.
1980: 1.6 million abortions each year. Republican Party officially adds anti-abortion plank
to Party platform, calls for appointment of anti-abortion-rights judges.
1988: Randall Terry founds anti-abortion protest group Operation Rescue.
1989: Supreme Court’s Webster v. Reproductive Health Services upholds a Missouri law
stating that “human life begins at conception,” allows restrictions on access to abortion as
long as the restrictions don’t place “undue burden” on the woman, and comes one vote
away from overturning Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortion lawmakers are now able to restrict
access, not just funding.
1989-1992: State legislatures are flooded with over 700 bills seeking to restrict access to
abortion. Proposed restrictions: mandatory waiting periods, mandatory counseling,
parental consent or notification laws, husband-consent laws, complicated clinic-licensing
requirements, onerous abortion-reporting laws, ambiguous bans on things like abortion-asbirth-control or abortion-for-sex-selection.
1991: Operation Rescue stages “Summer of Mercy,” a six-week barricading of abortion
clinics in Wichita, Kansas. Federal marshals called in. Over 1,600 anti-abortion protesters
arrested. Clinics remain open.
1992: Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey upholds waiting periods and statemandated counseling; refuses to overturn Roe.
1990s: Several abortion providers murdered.
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act passes, making it illegal to “use force,
the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt
to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive
11 health care services.”
2003: Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban passes. Immediately challenged.
2006: South Dakota abortion ban ballot initiative defeated 55-45.
2007: Supreme Court’s Gonzales v. Carhart upholds federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
2008: Colorado ballot initiative seeking to define a person as “any human being from the
moment of fertilization” defeated 73-27. South Dakota abortion ban with exceptions
defeated 55-45.
Abortion rate drops to 1.2 million.
2009: Abortion provider Dr. George Tiller murdered in Kansas.
President George W. Bush establishes sweeping conscience clause; health care workers
can refuse to participate in any service that violates their religious beliefs.
2010: Affordable Care Act passes with provision that abortion insurance must be paid for
separately.
Alaska becomes 36th state to pass parental notification/consent.
2011: Bush conscience rule reversed. States ban insurance coverage of abortion in the
exchange. Ohio considers “heartbeat bill” that would ban abortion at 18 days. Efforts to
defund Planned Parenthood nearly shut down federal government.
Sources: (Blasdell & Goss, 2006, p. 1), (Jordan & Wells, 2009), (Kolbert & Miller, 1998),
(Guttmacher Institute, 2011a), (Hodgson, 1998), (Saletan, 2003), (Solinger, 1998),
(Wilder, 1998), (Wilkerson, 1991).
Section 2: Understanding the Abortion Grays
Identifying the Grays: American Public Opinion on Abortion Legality
Public opinion on abortion legality has changed little since Roe v. Wade. One in four
Americans believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and about one in five think
it should be illegal in all circumstances (Gallup, 2011). That leaves over half of the country
saying abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances -- the Abortion Grays.
Figure 1. Opinion Trendline on Abortion Legality
12 Source: (Gallup, 2011).
To tease out the degree to which the Grays favor restrictions on abortion, pollsters ask
those in the middle if they think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or legal only in a
few. This creates a four-point scale, also fairly constant over time, which in 2010 was:
•
25 percent: legal under any circumstances.
•
15 percent: legal under most circumstances.
•
37 percent: legal only in a few circumstances.
•
19 percent: illegal in all circumstances.
13 The cases in which Americans think abortion should be generally legal are in the first
trimester (support declines as a pregnancy progresses), and in the instances of rape, incest, when
the woman’s health or life is at risk, and if there is a fetal abnormality (Gallup, 2011).
Americans are certain about their views on abortion legality. On any given poll, generally
fewer than three percent of people say they do not know where they stand or have no opinion
(Gallup, 2011). Two-thirds are confident that their own position on abortion is the right one,
while only a quarter report ever wondering about their views on the issue (The Pew Forum on
Religion & Public Life, 2009).
Demographics: Who Are the Abortion Grays?
The Abortion Grays are a broad swath of the American public. They are no more likely to
be men than women, they are slightly more likely to be people of color, and they are more likely
to be ideologically moderate (O'Rourke, 2011). They are everybody except the highly educated
secular and the highly religious (Greenberg, 2011).
Grays can be divided into two basic groups. The first group agrees with the pro-choice
principle that women should decide whether or not to have an abortion, but also agrees with the
anti-abortion view when it comes to specific circumstances. The second group has never really
thought much about abortion; their opinion on the matter can best be predicted by their political
or religious views (Hickman & Hayes, 2011). When this second type does think about abortion,
they consider it in terms of their own personal experience with abortion -- themselves, someone
they know, or things they have heard (Greenberg, 2011).
In one survey, polling firm Belden Russonello & Stewart dubbed versions of these groups
the Abortion Worriers and the Disinterested. The Abortion Worriers made up 26 percent of the
14 public. They strongly believed abortion should be legal in only a few cases. Demographically,
the Abortion Worriers were the most white, more upper-middle income, more likely to have
kids, more conservative, more Republican, more Midwestern, more likely to attend church, and
just as likely as other groups to know someone who’d had an abortion (Belden Russonello &
Stewart, 2004).
The Disinterested were 19 percent of the public. They thought abortion should be legal in
all, most, or only a few cases, but they did not hold these views very strongly, and they were
uncertain of their position on abortion in general. Demographically, the Disinterested were more
men (especially men under 40), more African American, more lower-middle income, less
educated, more single, more moderate, more Independent, less registered to vote, and less likely
to say they knew someone who’d had an abortion (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004).
Dividing Abortion Grays into these two groups is just one way of making sense of this
large slice of the public. These two types should not be viewed as blocs, as attitudes differ within
the groups.
Attitudes: How Do Grays Think about Abortion?
Americans hold complex, sometimes conflicting beliefs about abortion. Eight out of 10
believe that abortion should be legal to some extent (Gallup, 2011), but three out of four also
think abortion is sometimes or always morally wrong (The Pew Forum on Religion & Public
Life, 2009). Seven in 10 agree that the abortion decision should be left up to the woman, her
family, and her doctor, but the same number also believe abortion is the taking of a human life
(The Feldman Group, 2007) -- with just under half calling abortion murder (Time/CNN/Harris,
2003). Six in 10 of Americans say that their views on abortion are guided by their religious faith,
15 but fewer than four in ten want elected officials to look to religion when making decisions about
abortion laws (The Feldman Group, 2007). People think both that women can regret the decision
to have an abortion, and that at the same time it can be the right decision for the woman to make
(Glasscock, 2011).
Grays are willing to think through the different circumstances in which a woman might
want or need an abortion. Even in a focus group of churchgoers who believed abortion is murder,
one participant reasoned “‘Well, yeah, but if there was a 16-year-old girl in my neighborhood
and she already had two or three kids and she wanted to have an abortion, then I think she should
be able to have that abortion’” (Greenberg, 2011).
People tend to view abortion as an issue that affects others, not themselves or their peer
group. Abortion “is so easily and eagerly disowned as an issue that ‘doesn’t affect me, or my
family or my friends.’ And even to the extent that it does, it’s seen as, ‘that was just the
exception. Who it really affects is this other class of people who act irresponsibly’” (O'Rourke,
2011). Associated with acting irresponsibly is the idea of using “abortion as birth control.”
The most telling predictor on abortion attitudes is whether a person thinks too many
women use abortion as birth control (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004). (The idea that women
forgo contraception and instead rely on multiple abortions is a pervasive, but mistaken belief.
The majority of women who have an abortion, even a repeat abortion, were using birth control
during the month they became pregnant (Jones, Singh, Finer, & Frohwirth, 2006), and only eight
percent of women obtain more than three abortions (Sonya B. Gamble et al., 2008).) This
troubles Abortion Worriers in particular; 68 percent of Worriers strongly agreed that too many
women use abortion as birth control, compared to only 37 percent of the Disinterested, and 45
percent of the public overall. Worriers care deeply about morality but also value the health of
16 women (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004). Concern about abortion as birth control causes
them to favor restrictions, yet they do not want abortion to be so inaccessible that women resort
to unsafe abortions. They acknowledge that harsh restrictions risk women’s health and lives, and
they struggle with this tension (MacCleery, 2011).
The anxiety over abortion as birth control reflects certain Grays’ concerns with sexuality
and morality. Explains public opinion expert Harrison Hickman, “The abortion issue is really a
fight about sex; it’s not about abortion per se. If it were about adult, married women … there
would be no fight” (Hickman & Hayes, 2011). Some Grays fear that if abortion were too
available, it could encourage sexual promiscuity. For this reason, they see abortion as “a
privilege reserved for rape victims, not as a right retained by women who indulged in sex
willingly” (Saletan, 1998, p. 115).
Finally, people differ in what they think the issue of abortion is primarily about: rights,
health care, or individual choice. Worriers see abortion as more of a health care issue.
Disinteresteds and Americans in general view it primarily as a matter of individual choice
(Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004). People also differ in their chief reason for favoring more
or fewer restrictions on legal abortion:
Some who favor abortion rights care primarily about the autonomy of women.
Others care primarily about poverty and the tragedies attending unwanted
motherhood. Others care more about curbing the power of the church. Still others
care more about restraining the reach of government. Among those who oppose
abortion rights, some are driven by a commitment to protect unborn life. Others
see the issue more as a matter of accepting the consequences of sexual
intercourse. Still others believe the primary objective is to preserve the traditional
17 family. These motives overlap and coexist within each person. Nevertheless, they
are distinct (Saletan, 1998, p. 112).
Section 3: Framing
What is Framing, Why is it Important, and How does it Work?
A frame is a “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning,” that suggests
“the essence” of an issue (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143). Frames “set a specific train of
thought in motion, communicating why an issue might be a problem, who or what might be
responsible for it, and what should be done about it” (Nisbet, 2009, p. 15).
To frame an issue is to emphasize certain aspects of the issue over others, making the
highlighted dimensions more relevant for the audience than they would be under a different
frame (Nisbet, 2009). A frame connects two concepts in the audience’s mind so that after
exposure to the linkage, the concepts’ association influences judgment (Nisbet, 2009; Simon &
Jerit, 2007). This simplifies the issue and activates certain thoughts, feelings, and values, which
encourages a particular way of evaluating the issue and leads to relatively predictable
conclusions (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997). Frames can be communicated instantaneously
through subtle nuances in word choice (Scheufele, 2000), as well as through metaphors,
catchphrases, images, symbols, and references to culture, history, or literature (Gamson &
Modigliani, 1989; Nisbet, 2010). But framing is about more than devices like symbols and
slogans; it is about ideas and values. Framing devices, including language, simply carry those
ideas and values (Lakoff, 2004).
Research has found that how information is framed -- apart from the content of the
message -- can impact opinions (Nisbet, 2010). For example, in one experiment, participants
18 were asked if they would support or oppose allowing a hate group to stage a political rally. When
the question was prefaced with “Given the importance of free speech,” 85 percent of respondents
favored the right of the group to hold the rally. But when the question was prefaced with “Given
the risk of violence,” only 45 percent answered in favor (Sniderman & Theriault, 2004, p. 152).
In another experiment, when asked if not enough was being spent on “assistance to the poor,” 65
percent of Americans said yes; only 20 percent agreed that not enough was being spent on
“welfare” (Rasinski, 1989, p. 391).
Framing is not as easy as strategically wording a questionnaire. While people look to
common frames from mass media, they also use personal experiences, conversations with peers,
“folk wisdom,” partisanship, and ideology to make sense of an issue (Nisbet, 2009; Price et al.,
2005). They interact with a frame, using it as a starting point to interpret and discuss an issue or
event (Scheufele, 1999), but other prior beliefs, thoughts, and feelings -- ones not stimulated by
the frame -- also compete for consideration in people’s judgment. A frame can guide but not
completely control the audience’s train of thought (V. Price et al., 1997). Ideology and
interpersonal discussion in particular temper how well a frame sticks (D. A. Scheufele, 2000). In
short, framing is best understood as a social process.
Advocacy groups are the most influential actors driving media frames in American
abortion discourse (Ferree et al., 2002), but frame adoption can go in multiple directions. People
regularly adopt frames they learn from their peers or the media. Elected officials often adopt
frames used by other politicians, the media, or the people. And the media sometimes adopts
frames used by politicians, advocacy groups, other media, or the people (Chong & Druckman,
2007). Additionally, multiple frames for a given issue emerge naturally, and individuals can hold
several of these ways of thinking at the same time (V Price et al., 2005).
19 All information is framed (Nisbet, 2009), and while frames are not policy positions (they
can contain pro, anti, or neutral policy implications), they have “built-in preference structures”
(Ferree et al., 2002, p. xiii). That is, they tend to lean one way or the other, to make certain
actions or policies the easiest, most obvious, or most logical.
Framing in the battle over abortion policy has shifted over time. Pro-choice activists
initially relied on a Women’s Rights frame, but that proved to be insufficiently motivating for the
middle, so in the late 1980s they switched to a Government Intrusion frame (Saletan, 2003). This
changed the question from “Should abortion be legal?” to “Who should decide whether a woman
has an abortion?” Abortion-rights opponents have also shifted their messaging. When research in
the early 1990s revealed that an exclusive use of the Fetal Life frame seemed too dismissive of
women, they began to use a Women’s Protection frame, claiming that “abortion hurts women”
physically and especially psychologically (multiple studies have refuted these claims) (Jordan &
Wells, 2009; Munk-Olsen, Laursen, Pedersen, Lidegaard, & Mortensen, 2011). Womenprotective arguments co-opt public health concerns and appeal to Grays that were hesitant to ban
abortion due to concerns for women’s wellbeing (Jordan & Wells, 2009).
Frames are immensely powerful. They can set the parameters of debate not only in
political discourse but also in legal cases. The “abortion hurts women” frame made it all the way
into the 2007 Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a ban on a type of lateterm abortion surgery -- the first time the courts had ever outlawed a specific medical procedure
(Associated Press, 2007). In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, “While we find no
reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women
come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe
depression and loss of esteem can follow” ("Gonzales v. Carhart," 2007, p. 29). Though he
20 explicitly acknowledged the lack of evidence that abortion hurts women, he nonetheless relied on
the frame in a Supreme Court decision.
A Note on Anti-Abortion Frames
Pro-choice advocates and abortion-rights foes compete for media and public attention for
their chosen frames. In addition to the Women’s Protection frame, the other main anti-abortion
frames today include Social Morality and Fetal Life. Social Morality (“abortion as birth control”)
argues that abortion encourages sexual promiscuity, that too many women use abortion as birth
control, and that our culture’s permissiveness of abortion is contributing to general moral decline
(Ferree et al., 2002; MacCleery, 2011). Fetal Life (“abortion stops a beating heart”) states simply
that human life is sacred, a fetus is an unborn child, and abortion is the taking of human life
(Ferree et al., 2002). Pro-choice communicators must be aware of these competing frames.
Section 4: Established Frames for Abortion Grays
Overview
The first key finding of this paper is that frames can benefit from the additional layer of
acknowledging or allowing for the complexity of people’s feelings about abortion. I call this
framework Complexity-Plus, because it can complement any frame. Some pro-choice
organizations already incorporate this framework into their messaging.
My second contribution is documenting in one place the frames of reference -Government Intrusion, Situational, Prevention, and Women’s Safety -- known to move Grays to
support abortion access across a greater number of cases. These frames came from the literature,
interviews, and case studies of electoral victories from the past five years.
21 My main contribution to the field is two new frames -- Responsible Parenthood, for
abortion access generally, and Free Market, a restriction-specific frame -- developed based on
the values and attitudes of Grays. I believe these frames would effectively engage Grays and
foster greater support of abortion access. They are detailed in Section 5.
Complexity-Plus
One theme that surfaced again and again in the interviews with advocates, in the
literature, and in the campaign materials against abortion-restricting ballot measures was a twostep message that first addressed people’s unease with abortion, and then pivoted to the thrust of
the frame, be it Government Intrusion, Situational, Prevention, or Women’s Safety. Many Grays
are personally opposed to abortion but do not want to make the decision for someone else
(Greenberg, 2011); a Complexity-Plus framework meets these people where they are and
resolves their conflict in a pro-choice direction (Stuckey, 2011).
Opening a message by acknowledging that the audience is conflicted about abortion
makes the audience more willing to listen and think through the message. Vince Hall, vice
president of public affairs and communications at Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest,
explained, “When we begin the conversation by embracing that complexity, it creates an ahamoment for [the listener], and they think ‘Okay, you see my concern, now I’m going to hear
what you have to say’” (2011). NARAL Pro-Choice America Communications Director Ted
Miller adds, “If acknowledging the complexity gets us in the door to being able to talk to
someone, we can walk through how a person goes through an issue: ‘I have feelings, I’m
conflicted, I don’t know every situation that a woman may face, so at the end of the day I’m
going to come to the decision that she should be able to make this decision, and government or
22 politicians shouldn’t be involved’” (2011). The framework starts with acknowledging
complexity, then it goes to the situation, and then it goes to individual decision-making and
privacy.
The public education and advocacy organization Reproductive Health Technologies
Project (RHTP) has done extensive research in this area, and developed messages such as:
•
“Women have abortions for many different reasons. Some of those reasons may not seem
right to us, but even if we disagree it is better that each person be able to make her own
decision.”
•
“There is just something about pregnancy and everybody has different feelings about it.
Each circumstance is different so we should respect and support women and families who
must make life-altering decisions about whether or not to have a child.” (Moore, 2007, p.
2).
Complexity-Plus messages did well in dial testing conducted by RHTP, and helped to
defeat abortion restrictions in South Dakota, Colorado, West Virginia, South Carolina, and
Missouri (Conway, Stuckey, & Moore, 2010).
Moral Complexity vs. Complexity
Vince Hall cautioned against saying “moral complexity,” advocating instead just for
“complexity.” This word choice is based in the psychology of moral absolutists versus moral
relativists. For relativists, experiences influence their definition of moral, and that definition is
open to revision. For absolutists, a third party such as their church, parents, or culture defines
what is moral, and the definition is rigid. A message that violates an absolutist’s set definition of
morality can be threatening. Merely using the word “moral” can trigger a defensive reaction
23 from absolutists and inadvertently close them off from the rest of the message. Hall finds it
sufficient to keep the Complexity-Plus message generalized and simply say a woman’s decision
about abortion is a complex decision, and people have complicated feelings about it (2011).
Government Intrusion
A Government Intrusion, or Privacy, frame focuses the issue of abortion on the role of
the state in the private lives of citizens. It argues that whether or not to have an abortion is a
decision between a woman and her doctor, and the government has no business interfering
(Ferree et al., 2002). This frame taps into people’s reluctance to make decisions for others in
general, and especially taps their opposition to the government making decisions for its citizens.
It relies on a respect for the doctor-patient relationship and a mistrust of government. Framing
devices include catchphrases such as “Who decides?” and “government just small enough to fit
in your bedroom/doctor’s office.” The Government Intrusion frame was crystallized in the late
1980s through research NARAL did with pollster Harrison Hickman (Saletan, 2003).
Strengths
The populist tagline of this frame, “Who decides -- you or them?” is broadly appealing. It
can be interpreted in different ways. For those motivated by a concern for women’s rights, “you”
means individual women and “them” means sexist politicians. For those motivated by a
suspicion of government, “you” means families and communities; “them” means nosy
bureaucrats (Saletan, 2003).
The frame is particularly effective with people who have not thought much about the
issue of abortion (Hall, 2011).
24 It shifts the burden of proof off of a woman defending her decision and onto those who
seek to invade privacy. It changes the question from “Should this woman be having this
abortion?” to “Why are abortion foes so adamant about infringing on people’s medical privacy?”
(Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004, p. 22).
This frame lends itself well to incorporating an acknowledgement of people’s conflicted
feelings about abortion. A Complexity-Government Intrusion message can begin with any
number of points that address people’s unease with abortion, and finish by stating that the
government has no business making such decisions.
Weaknesses
While successful in preserving legal abortion in general, the Government Intrusion frame
fails to rally opposition against restrictions such as parental notification laws and the ban on
Medicaid coverage of abortion. Voters who oppose government involvement in traditional,
private institutions value parents’ rights over teens’ rights, and do not think the government
should spend taxpayer money on abortions for poor women (Saletan, 1998).
The Government Intrusion frame is a double-edged sword in particular when it comes to
these public funds for abortion. Casting the role of government as hands off legally makes it
difficult to then argue for involvement financially. A Government Intrusion frame is in tension
with a Human Rights frame, which argues that the government has the obligation to make sure a
right on paper is right in reality (MacCleery, 2011).
Recent Successes
The Government Intrusion frame helped defeat a 2008 South Dakota abortion ban that
25 included exceptions for rape, incest, and the health or life of the woman. Early polling found that
South Dakotans supported such a ban 55-43, with only two percent undecided. Additionally,
campaign managers found that “messaging around choice, abortion as a constitutional right, or
the threat of illegal abortion would motivate our base (about one in three South Dakota voters),
but did very little to persuade anyone to change sides” (Lewis & Peterson, 2009), para. 10). The
campaign relied heavily on Government Intrusion and Situational frames, eventually defeating
the ban 55-45.
The Government Intrusion frame, among others, also helped defeat 70-30 a 2010
personhood ballot measure in Colorado that would have classified fertilized human eggs as
people under the law (Protect Families Protect Choices, 2010).
Situational
A Situational frame centers the issue of abortion on respect for individual decisionmaking in situations the audience cannot understand. It starts by identifying the circumstances
where people do agree abortion should be accessible -- such as in the case of rape, incest, risk to
the life or health of the woman, and fetal abnormalities -- then stretches those to say no one can
possibly imagine all the circumstances in which a woman might need an abortion, and therefore
it is best to leave the decision to the woman herself. Ultimately, a Situational frame is a subset of
the Government Intrusion frame, but the emphasis is on the inability to know all situations; the
role of government is secondary.
Strengths
As mentioned in Section 2, Grays are willing to put themselves in the shoes of women
26 who have abortions. In a Situational frame, women’s stories can help Grays to understand the
diverse circumstances in which a woman might need an abortion, and to empathize.
This frame easily accommodates people’s discomfort with abortion. In discussing the
many reasons why a woman might decide to terminate a pregnancy, a Complexity-Situational
message can acknowledge that the audience might disagree with some of those reasons, while
still asserting that the decision should rest with the woman.
A Situational frame can be effective particularly in the context of supporting health
insurance coverage for abortion because the purpose of insurance is to plan for unplanned
situations (Miller, 2011).
Weaknesses
This frame can be dangerous because people rank circumstances. Most everyone agrees
that a woman should be able to have an abortion in the case or rape, incest, or when the life or
health of the woman is at risk. But a Situational frame leaves room for judgment of “abortion as
birth control” or of someone who “just doesn’t feel like having a kid” (Greenberg, 2011).
Also, the personal stories used need to be relatable. They cannot be so dramatic as to
seem like exceptions to the rule, and thus not sufficient reason to permit abortion access
generally (O'Rourke, 2011).
Recent Successes
A Situational frame was the second of two primary messages in the campaign against
South Dakota’s proposed abortion ban. The story of Chris and Tiffany Campbell illustrated for
South Dakota voters that a ban cannot account for all circumstances a woman and her family
27 may face. Complications in Tiffany’s pregnancy with twins meant that both would die without a
selective reduction. She obtained the procedure and later gave birth to a healthy boy, something
that would not have been possible under the ban. Strategists credit the Situational frame and the
Campbells’ story as an important part of defeating the measure (Steiger, 2008).
A January 2010 poll for NARAL also found the Situational frame effective. The poll
tested this message from mock candidates: “He supports a woman’s right to choose to have an
abortion. He says there are many reasons a woman may consider abortion. She might have been
raped, the pregnancy might threaten her life or health or she may not be able to care for another
child. No one can know what these women are going through and every woman must make the
choice for herself, without any interference by the government or politicians” (NARAL ProChoice America & Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 2010, p. 4). This language and the
Prevention message NARAL also tested (below) yielded a 13-point electoral bump for the mock
Democratic candidate, and a 10-point bump for the Republican candidate.
Prevention
A Prevention frame emphasizes reducing the need for abortion by preventing unintended
pregnancies and supporting pregnant women and new families. Advocates present this frame as a
common ground solution in an otherwise polarized debate. Examples of Prevention messages
include:
•
“I believe we can find common ground to reduce the need for abortion while still
protecting a woman’s right to have one” (Third Way, 2010, p. 1).
•
“Americans can agree that we need to reduce the need for abortion in this country by
preventing unwanted pregnancies, assisting pregnant women, and supporting adoption.
28 Common ground opponents want to make abortion against the law and throw people in
jail for having them” (Third Way, 2010, p. 4).
•
“He supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion and says that both sides of
this debate should come together behind common sense suggestions to prevent
unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion, like birth control, sex
education, and increasing support for family planning services” (NARAL Pro-Choice
America & Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 2010, p. 4).
Strengths
This frame is successful because Americans are hungry for common ground on abortion
-- three in four wish that elected officials would seek such a solution (Third Way, 2010) -- and
because birth control is wildly popular. Over 99 percent of sexually active women use
contraception at some point in their lifetimes (Guttmacher Institute, 2010, p. 1). A 2006 poll
found that eight in 10 of the people surveyed thought access to birth control was a good way to
prevent abortions, nine in 10 agreed that there should be more access to information about family
planning, and seven in 10 thought that access to contraception should not be limited by a
person’s ability to afford it (Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive).
Additionally, Grays, particularly religious and conservative Grays, like the idea of
supporting pregnant women, adoption, and new mothers (MacGillis, 2008). And Prevention is
particularly effective when contrasted with the consequences of recriminalizing abortion,
because only 20 percent of Americans agree that people who perform or have an abortion should
go to jail (The Feldman Group, 2007). Finally, the call to reduce the need for abortion is a built-
29 in acknowledgement of people’s complicated feelings around the issue and their desire for there
to be fewer abortions.
Weaknesses
It may be tempting with a Prevention frame to skirt a stance on legal abortion; that would
be a mistake. “We have an opposition singularly focused on ‘abortion is bad,’ and if we come
back at them with ‘contraception is good,’ that’s not a match” explains Lydia Stuckey of
Reproductive Health Technologies Project (Stuckey, 2011). People want to know where a
candidate stands on the issue. They respect and need clarity (Miller, 2011).
Recent Successes
NARAL has found the Prevention frame can convince certain Grays, particularly prochoice Independent and Republican women, to switch parties come Election Day. Exposing antiabortion-rights candidates’ anti-prevention views (these candidates tend to oppose both abortion
rights and prevention measures) while promoting a pro-choice pro-prevention candidate helped
elect new pro-choice candidates in five out of six targeted congressional races in 2006 (Miller,
2008).
The Democratic Party Platform changed its abortion language from “abortion should be
safe, legal, and rare” in 2004 to the “reduce the need for abortion” language in 2008 (MacGillis,
2008). President Obama employed the Prevention frame, heavily incorporating an
acknowledgement of the complexity around abortion, in his commencement address to the
University of Notre Dame in 2009.
30 When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely
like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that’s when we discover at least
the possibility of common ground. That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we
won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision
for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.”
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s
reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s
provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term (Obama,
2009).
Women’s Safety
A Women’s Safety frame raises the specter of women suffering injuries or dying if they
turn to unsafe abortions because they cannot access safe services. Some call it “the coat hanger
argument,” in reference to the dangerous back-alley abortions that occurred pre-Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, the image of a coat hanger is one framing device that can instantly transmit this message.
Strengths Abortion Grays recognize that if abortion were too restricted, women might turn to
unsafe abortions and hurt themselves, and this concerns them (MacCleery, 2011). The Women’s
Safety frame has been particularly effective in combating parental notification initiatives by
shifting thinking from parents’ rights to teen safety.
31 Weaknesses
The Women’s Safety frame appears to resonate with fewer people than the other frames
discussed. For example, public opinion research revealed that it was not sufficiently motivating
to use against the South Dakota ban (Lewis & Peterson, 2009). The threat to women’s health and
lives is also not as meaningful or even recognizable for post-Roe v. Wade generations. One
young woman, upon seeing a crossed-out coat hanger button on a pro-choice activist’s lapel,
asked, “‘What do you have against dry cleaners?’” (Keenan, 2008).
A Woman’s Safety frame must be explicit. A message such as “this law puts women’s
health at risk” is too vague. The danger of unsafe abortion no longer immediately comes to mind,
especially for younger generations, and people fail to understand what such a statement means
(Hickman & Hayes, 2011).
Recent Successes
The Safety frame helped a California coalition -- dubbed the Campaign for Teen Safety -defeat a parental notification initiative three times in four years. Parental involvement measures
are tempting for Grays and even for some who identify as solidly pro-choice, because most
parents would want their daughter to come to them in the event of a pregnancy. Their instinct is
to support and aid teens (Hickman & Hayes, 2011). They do not recognize right away that
requiring all teens to notify their parents jeopardizes girls from bad family situations by
potentially putting them at risk from abusive parents and unsafe abortions.
With an issue as sensitive as teen abortion, it is especially important to acknowledge
voters’ conflicting feelings. In the Campaign for Teen Safety’s television spots, the full first half
of the ads were devoted to assuring voters that of course their family was loving and their
32 daughter would come to them in the event of a pregnancy, before shifting to the danger for girls
who risk violence from forced notification or a botched abortion (Campaign for Teen Safety,
2008).
Section 5: New Frames for Abortion Grays
Responsible Parenthood
The pro-choice community often talks about abortion as the decision whether or not to
have a child. This creates space to judge women who have abortions as selfish and anti-child. I
wonder instead if a frame emphasized whether or not to become a parent (or to become a parent
again), if that would change how people viewed abortion. A Responsible Parenthood frame
would highlight the gravity of the decision to become a parent and the enormous responsibility
of parenthood. A focus on parenthood also implies a concern for the wellbeing of children.
Strengths
Many Grays, especially Abortion Worriers, are parents themselves (Belden Russonello &
Stewart, 2004), so I think a Responsible Parenthood frame would resonate particularly well with
them. Broadly, I think the frame would be successful because people approve of planning
families, they take parenthood seriously, and they care about the wellbeing of children.
Over nine in 10 Americans agreed with the statement “all couples and individuals should
have the right to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children
and to have the information and means to do so” (Adamson, Belden, DaVanzo, & Patterson,
2000, p. 40). Do they understand that abortion is sometimes a part of that? I think this strong
support of the right to plan one’s family could be stretched for many to include abortion.
33 Americans highly value good parenting. Over half reported that being a good parent is
“one of the most important things in their lives.” Parenting ranked highest, above having a
successful marriage, owning a home, and having a high-paying career. This held true for
Millennials (people born after 1980), even though only a third of them currently have children
(Pew Social Trends Staff, 2010, p. 18).
Good parenting implies happy, healthy children. Unlike the other frames discussed in this
paper, a Responsible Parenthood frame brings the wellbeing of children or potential children into
the picture. Grays must weigh their discomfort with abortion against a possible negative outcome
for an unplanned and unwanted child.
Weaknesses
Weaknesses of this frame include that the family planning aspect of it may be vulnerable
to attacks about “abortion as birth control.” Also, the responsibility component competes with
the idea that “taking responsibility” for a pregnancy means carrying to term (Real Reason, 2009).
Examples of Family-Based Messaging
Pro-choice advocates are already employing family-based messaging with what could be
called a Healthy Families frame. The Reproductive Health Technologies Project used messaging
such as “We all want strong, safe families where every child has the chance to thrive and
prosper” (Conway et al., 2010), para. 7) to help defeat abortion restrictions in South Carolina.
The Colorado and South Dakota campaigns mentioned above incorporated the healthy families
idea into their names: Protect Families Protect Choices, and South Dakota Healthy Families,
respectively (Protect Families Protect Choices, 2010; South Dakota Healthy Families, 2008).
34 Free Market
The Affordable Care Act sparked a flood of efforts to restrict health insurance coverage
of abortion -- not only under plans sold in the new exchanges, but under regular private policies
as well. In the first quarter of 2011, 23 states introduced bills that would ban abortion coverage
(with few exceptions) in their exchanges, and 11 states introduced bills that would apply to
private plans. Nine states already have one or both bans (Cohen, 2010). Additionally, proposed
legislation at the federal level seeks not only to ban coverage in state exchanges, but also to
remove tax credits and deductions on abortion services in private and employer plans, effectively
increasing taxes for anyone who has an abortion or buys insurance that covers abortion.
Free Market frame is a restriction-specific frame that would stress that it is inappropriate,
unfair, and manipulative for the government to meddle with private markets and to limit
individuals’ insurance options.
Strengths
I think a Free Market frame would be effective not only with conservative and libertarian
Grays who oppose government interference in business and private institutions (Saletan, 2003),
but also Americans more broadly because these bills violate the American values of fairness and
individual choice.
Weaknesses
One could counter argue that the government already uses taxes to influence private
35 markets and citizen behavior. For example, the state taxes alcohol and tobacco to discourage
drinking and smoking.
Emerging Examples of the Free Market Frame
Left-leaning bloggers have already employed the Free Market frame, with one headline
blaring “GOP Backs Massive Tax Increase To Phase Out Abortion Coverage By Private
Insurers” (Beutler, 2011). Democratic politicians, too, have adopted it. Representative Jerrold
Nadler (D-NY) accused Republicans of attempting to limit “‘private choices by private
individuals and businesses in the private insurance market,’” and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
said, “‘The Republicans in the House are proposing tax hikes because they don’t like a health
plan a private-sector business chooses’” (Beutler, 2011).
Conclusion
Prefacing any abortion-access frame with an acknowledgement of people’s complex
feelings surrounding abortion makes the message more effective. Frames known to move
Abortion Grays to support abortion access in more cases are Government Intrusion, Situational,
Prevention, and Women’s Safety. These frames work by activating beliefs and values that Grays
already hold. The Government Intrusion frame condemns state meddling in private matters; the
Situational frame stresses respect for personal decision-making in unknowable situations; the
Prevention frame emphasizes reducing the need for abortion; and the Women’s Safety frame
centers on the dangers of unsafe abortion.
Based on my understanding of Abortion Grays, I propose two additional frames:
Responsible Parenthood and Free Market. A Responsible Parenthood frame focuses on the right
36 to plan one’s family and the value of good parenting; and a Free Market frame denounces
government interference in private markets and private purchasing decisions. We need public
opinion research to explore how well these frames actually resonate.
Finding abortion-access frames effective with Abortion Grays is important because while
abortion is common, it is also heavily regulated and often burdensome to obtain. Abortion Grays
swing elections that impact abortion policy. Engaging Grays to support broader abortion access
can help create a society where women are able to safely access the abortion care they need.
It is crucial to note that framing is not a silver bullet, but merely part of a communication
strategy. Each of the campaigns cited in this paper also relied on building a broad coalition
(usually including doctors, nurses, religious leaders, legal experts, community groups, and a
variety of local advocacy groups); tapping opinion leaders, especially in the medical community;
using paid media; and backing up all activities with a strong grassroots effort (Lewis & Peterson,
2009; Protect Families Protect Choices, 2010).
Caveats to this paper include that it chiefly examined frames that work to preserve
abortion access in general, whereas most restrictions today occur in the form of specific
restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, scientifically inaccurate counseling, parental
notification, and bans on abortion coverage in health insurance plans. Specific restrictions likely
require tailored messaging. Also, while Abortion Grays are important, especially in elections,
advocates should remember that “an energized 36% [the pro-choice base] is worth more than a
passive 51%” (Belden Russonello & Stewart, 2004, p. 23).
Finally, this paper does not address a long-term engagement strategy, or, how to raise
awareness during non-election times of the importance of safe abortion access in women’s lives.
How can we restart the conversation around abortion?
37 References
Adamson, D. M., Belden, N., DaVanzo, J., & Patterson, S. (2000). How Americans View World
Population Issues: A Survey of Public Opinion Population Matters: A RAND Program of
Policy-Relevant Research Communication. Santa Monica, CA.
Associated Press. (2005, June 07, 2005). Double Murder Conviction for Man Who Helped
Girlfriend Miscarry, Fox News. Retrieved from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158783,00.html
Associated Press. (2007, April 18, 2007). Top court upholds ban on abortion procedure, MSNBC.
Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18174245/ns/politics/
Belden, N. (2011). Personal communication, March 29, 2011.
Belden Russonello & Stewart. (2004). Abortion Messaging for Joint Emergency Campaign:
Belden Russonello & Stewart Research and Communication.
Beutler, B. (2011, February 9, 2011). GOP Backs Massive Tax Increase To Phase Out Abortion
Coverage By Private Insurers, Talking Point Memo. Retrieved from
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/gop-backs-massive-tax-to-phase-outabortion-coverage-by-private-insurers.php
Blasdell, J., & Goss, K. (2006). Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation.
Boonstra, H. D., Gold, R. B., Richards, C. L., & Finer, L. B. (2006). Abortion in Women's Lives.
New York: Guttmacher Institute.
Campaign for Teen Safety. (2008). YouTube - Campaign4TeenSafety's Channel. from
http://www.youtube.com/user/Campaign4TeenSafety#p/u
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Political Science, 10(1), 103-126.
Cohen, S. A. (2007). New Data on Abortion Incidence, Safety Illuminate Key Aspects of
Worldwide Abortion Debate (Vol. 10). New York: Guttmacher Policy Review.
Cohen, S. A. (2010). Insurance Coverage of Abortion: The Battle to Date and the Battle to
Come. Guttmacher Policy Review, 13(4).
Conway, M., Stuckey, L., & Moore, K. (2010, September 24, 2010). Moving From Judgement to
Empathy: Lessons From the States, Women's Health Activist Newsletter. Retrieved from
http://nwhn.org/moving-judgement-empathy-lessons-states
Dean, C. (2007, November 6, 2007). Telling the Stories Behind the Abortions, The New York
Times. Retrieved from
38 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06abor.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&
pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1200978153-clVouffu3Sm9WGws1wYLNg
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse:
Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gallup. (2011). Abortion. Retrieved March 21, 2011, from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#1
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research
in political sociology, 3(2), 137-177.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power:
A constructionist approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
Glasscock, C. M. (2011). Personal communication, March 2, 2011.
Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380 (Supreme Court of the United States 2007).
Greenberg, A. (2011). Personal communication, March 15, 2011.
Guttmacher Institute. (2010). Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States. New York:
Guttmacher Institute.
Guttmacher Institute. (2011a). Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. New York:
Guttmacher Institute.
Guttmacher Institute. (2011b). Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: Trends in the
First Quarter of 2011. New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute.
Hall, V. (2011). Personal communication, March 14, 2011.
Hickman, H., & Hayes, E. (2011). Personal communication, February 18, 2011.
Hodgson, J. (1998). The Twentieth-Century Gender Battle. In R. Solinger (Ed.), Abortion Wars:
A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jones, R. K., Singh, S., Finer, L. B., & Frohwirth, L. F. (2006). Repeat Abortion in the United
States. New York: Guttmacher Institute.
Jordan, B., & Wells, E. (2009). Editorial: A 21st-Century Trojan Horse: The 'Abortion Harms
Women' Anti-Choice Argument Disguises a Harmful Movement. Contraception, 79,
161-164.
Keenan, N. (2008). NARAL Pro-Choice American President Marks Major Milestone for
Reproductive Rights with Speech at the University of Texas. from
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/roe35_texas_speech.pdf
39 Kessler, J., Dillon, J., Kott, J., & Solomon, J. (2005). The Demographics of Abortion: The Great
Divide Between Abortion Rhetoric and Abortion Reality. Washington, DC: Third Way.
Kolbert, K., & Miller, A. (1998). Legal Strategies for Abortion Rights in the Twenty-First
Century. In R. Solinger (Ed.), Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub.
Co.
Lewis, C., & Peterson, N. (2009, February 1, 2009). South Dakota's Measure 11, Campaigns &
Elections. Retrieved from
http://www.campaignsandelections.com/publications/campaign-election/2009/february2009/south-dakotas-measure-11
MacCleery, L. (2011). Personal communication, March 1, 2011.
MacGillis, A. (2008, August 13, 2008). Conservative Dems Hail Party Platform's New Abortion
Plank, Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/conservative-dems-hail-party-p.html
McCullough, M. (2011, January 19, 2011). Gruesome details in report on Philadelphia abortion
doctor, Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved from
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20110119_Gruesome_details_in_report_on_
Philadelphia_abortion_doctor.html
Miller, T. (2008). People, Politics, and Policy: Three Ways to Win with Prevention First.
Washington, DC: NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation.
Miller, T. (2011). Personal communication, March 11, 2011.
Moore, K. (2007). Is Abortion Bad? Retrieved February 20, 2011, from
http://www.rhtp.org/abortion/documents/NYSalonEssay2007.pdf
Munk-Olsen, T., Laursen, T. M., Pedersen, C. B., Lidegaard, ÿ., & Mortensen, P. B. (2011).
Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder. New England Journal of
Medicine, 364(4), 332-339.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, & Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. (2010). Another Look at
Reproductive Choice. Washington, DC.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public
engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 1223.
Nisbet, M. C. (2010). Framing Science: A New Paradigm in Public Engagement. In L. Kahlor &
P. Stout (Eds.), New Agendas in Science Communication (pp. 40-67). New York:
Routledge.
40 O'Rourke, M. (2011). Personal communication, February 16, 2011.
Obama, B. (2009). Remarks by the President in Commencement Address at the University of
Notre Dame. from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-thePresident-at-Notre-Dame-Commencement/
Pew Social Trends Staff. (2010). Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next. Washington, DC:
Pew Research Center.
Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179-212.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought. Communication
research, 24(5), 481.
Protect Families Protect Choices. (2010). Protect Families Protect Choices Homepage. from
http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org/
Rasinski, K. A. (1989). The effect of question wording on public support for government
spending. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(3), 388-394.
Real Reason. (2009). Framing Abortion Through Responsibility, Autonomy, Equality. Oakland,
CA: Real Reason.
Saletan, W. (1998). Electoral Politics and Abortion: Narrowing the Message. In R. Solinger
(Ed.), Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Saletan, W. (2003). Bearing Right: How conservatives Won the Abortion War. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1),
103-122.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2),
297-316.
Simon, A. F., & Jerit, J. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public
opinion. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 254-271.
Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic
of Issue Framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in Public Opinion
(pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Solinger, R. (1998). Chronology of Abortion Politics. In R. Solinger (Ed.), Abortion Wars: A
Half Century of Struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press.
41 Sonya B. Gamble, M., Lilo T. Strauss, M., Parker, W. Y., Douglas A. Cook, M., Suzanne B.
Zane, D., & Saeed Hamdan, M., PhD. (2008). Abortion Surveillance: United States,
2005: Center for Disease Control.
South Dakota Healthy Families. (2008). South Dakota Healthy Families Homepage. from
http://www.sdhealthyfamilies.org/
Steiger, K. (2008, December 9, 2008). How the Midwest Was Won: South Dakota Healthy
Families' Winning Message, RH Reality Check. Retrieved from
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/08/how-west-was-won-south-dakota-votersreject-abortion-ban
Stuckey, L. (2011). Personal communication, February 28, 2011.
Suarez, G. (2011). Personal communication, February 24, 2011.
The Feldman Group. (2007). National Abortion Survey. Washington, DC: Third Way.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (2009). Religion & Public Life Survey, August 2009.
Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center for the People & The Press.
Third Way. (2010). Abortion: Reducing the Need, Protecting the Right. Washington, DC: The
Third Way Culture Program.
Time/CNN/Harris. (2003). Time/CNN/Harris Interactive Poll, Jan, 2003. Retrieved Mar-22-2011
from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of
Connecticut.
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu.proxyau.wrlc.org/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html
Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive. (2006, June 22, 2006). Large Majorities Support More
Access to Birth Control Information, and Agree that it is a Good Way to Prevent
Abortions, Wall Street Journal/Harris Interactive. Retrieved from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NEWS/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1064
Warner, J. (2006, July 29, 2006). When Parents Can't Know, New York Times. Retrieved from
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406e2d6123ff93aa15754c0a9609c8b63
Wilder, M. J. (1998). The Rule of Law, The Rise of Violence, and the Role of Morality:
Reframing America's Abortion Debate. In R. Solinger (Ed.), Abortion Wars: A Half
Century of Struggle, 1950-2000. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilkerson, I. (1991, August 4, 1991). Drive Against Abortion Finds a Symbol: Wichita, The
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/04/us/drive-againstabortion-finds-a-symbol-wichita.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
42