( = 41)
In our analysis, we found that arguments could be classified into two major argument frames: scientific disinformation and moral arguments, with some anti-abortion proponents using both frames to build their case for supporting H.3020.
Throughout the testimonies, proponents of H.3020 framed arguments using claims based in scientific disinformation. These types of claims misrepresented scientific findings and used scientific and medical terms and explanations of pregnancy and abortion in inaccurate or misleading ways to justify the ban. Both individuals with medical backgrounds and those without scientific training used scientific arguments to support the ban. Arguments that relied on scientific disinformation can be classified into four themes: (1) Arguments from biased medical professionals; (2) Arguments that misrepresented science; (3) Arguments that attempted to redefine life from a scientific perspective; and (4) Arguments using value or logic statements to connect scientific and moral arguments.
Four supporters of H.3020 from the 2019 hearings were medical professionals. Each began their statements by describing their training and credentials in detail, with only one claiming to specialize in obstetrics. The other three mentioned that their training in obstetrics was outdated or not extensive, yet they felt they could serve as experts despite their “limited experience.” One even stated, “I don't have the level of expertise and experience of my obstetrical colleagues,” yet continued to share his testimony about refusing to refer pregnant people seeking abortions to abortion providers. All the medical professionals mentioned the Hippocratic Oath, referring to it as their “oath to protect the life of the born and the unborn,” and their duty “to speak on behalf of the unborn.”
The medical professionals with experience working in family medicine or obstetrics shared stories of coercing pregnant people to listen to and view their ultrasounds. 2 One stated:
“We have a look at the ultrasound and have the mother see the heartbeat. Upon seeing the heartbeat, she realizes this is a child and it's her child … Most of the women who have an opportunity simply to see truth—that this is their child they’re carrying—decide to continue with the pregnancy.”
In a later testimony, this same physician stated that he would “never coerce,” yet he described how he would offer free ultrasounds to pregnant people who had made it clear they wanted an abortion and then use that ultrasound as an opportunity to convince them to continue their pregnancies:
“We'd put the ultrasound probe on and see this teeny little peanut of a fetus—or an embryo, really– and then hung around a little bit further and then see this teeny little fluttering, which comprised a kind of a rapid beat that you could see. And almost invariably– not all the time, but almost invariably– I would point that out and the lady would say, ‘Is that my baby's heartbeat?’ Almost invariably, that was a comment that was made. … And then after that, the vast majority of those women who would see that heartbeat would then decide to keep their pregnancies. Not all, but many of them did decide to keep them.”
Medical professionals also used medical terminology in biased ways to bolster their claims. One described fetal development by saying:
“At 6 1/2 weeks, the teeny little baby is about a little bit less than an inch long; has very incipient eyes, head, chest, a two chambered heart; has limb buds with teeny little buds that will eventually become fingers at the time of the average time for elective abortion.”
Another physician stated, “We can discuss all day long here today whether the fluttering, the pulsation and cardinal vessels of a tiny embryo comprise a heartbeat or two chamber for chamber heart.” Despite his medical expertise, he went on to say, “When a mother says that it is a heartbeat, that's a heartbeat.”
Intertwining their anti-abortion opinions with their medical “expertise” and “experience,” the medical professionals who testified in support of the 6-week ban made grandiose claims about how wrong they believe abortion to be. One stated, “Any medical procedure that interrupts or terminates that developing human life for whatever reason constitutes the taking of a human life.” Another said:
“There is no circumstance, no matter how desperate or difficult, that justifies the killing of innocent unborn children with beating hearts. And trust me, as a family doctor, I have dealt with all of these desperate and difficult circumstances that surround the conception of unborn children.”
Another obstetrician and medical director at a crisis pregnancy center stated, “I have lots of patients and I don't tell them, ‘I’m a Christian, I don’t believe in abortion, you can’t have an abortion’ … I talk to them about their options.”
Many anti-abortion proponents relied heavily on data, statistics, or numbers to bolster their claims. However, they rarely referred to actual sources and often misrepresented the statistics they cited. Representative John McCravy, the primary legislative sponsor of H.3020 stated, “If that heartbeat's detected, there's a 90 percent chance of that baby's survival” and “we know from medical science that that's about 90 to 95 percent now.” Fetal cardiac activity – what supporters of this bill call a “heartbeat” – can be detected as early as 6 weeks gestation, which is long before the possibility of a viable birth. While viability is a complex medical concept determined by more than gestational age, leading experts in the field of fetal and maternal medicine do not consider births before 20 weeks gestation to be near the threshold of viability (i.e., periviable) ( 13 ). Furthermore, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that 95% of births before 23 weeks gestation result in fetal death ( 14 ).
Other speakers made erroneous statements about the consequences of abortion, such as “the statistics show that 10% of women who have abortions never have another child” and “there is no data to support the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth.” These speakers did not provide sources for these claims. However, even if the former statement were true, 90% of people who get abortions would go on to have a child, which is high given the fact that nearly 17% of older adults in the United States do not have biological children ( 15 ). There are not reliable studies that follow people for the rest of their reproductive years to ascertain if they have a biological child after getting an abortion; however, most people who have abortions already have at least one child ( 16 ). Furthermore, compared to people denied an abortion, people who receive an abortion are more likely to become pregnant again in the subsequent 5 years ( 17 ). Regarding the safety of abortions, many studies have found that legal abortions are much safer than childbirth ( 18 – 20 ). Considering mortality alone, abortions are significantly safer than giving birth. In the United States in 2019, there were 20.1 deaths per 100,000 live births ( 21 ). In contrast, the rate of abortion-related deaths from 2013 to 2017 was 0.44 legal induced abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal abortions ( 22 ).
Some speakers used anecdotal evidence to generalize about the experiences of patients, displaying that they lacked the ability (or desire) to differentiate between their subjective experiences and scientific evidence. A registered nurse referred to a “brief survey” that she conducted of obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYNs) at the hospital where she worked. She said her sample consisted of “a handful of doctors” but she used research terminology and drew generalized conclusions. She stated that, “All but one [doctor] admitted to seeing multiple women in the emergency room with abortion complications,” and that there were “frequent diagnoses of retained products of conception, punctured uterus and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening condition.” She followed up by stating, “That is when a woman has had an abortion without having an ultrasound to determine the location of the pregnancy.” Similarly, an obstetrician, who was also the medical director at a crisis pregnancy center, claimed to see patients who reported physical and mental harm from abortions. Another medical doctor recounted his experience with patients seeking abortions, stating, “The vast majority of those women who would see that heartbeat would then decide to keep their pregnancies.” These speakers misrepresented anecdotal experience as scientific evidence, describing experiences that contradict research showing that abortions are very safe ( 18 – 20 , 23 ) and that most people do not regret getting them ( 24 ).
Disregard for scientific evidence was also demonstrated when anti-abortion proponents stated that the scientific backing for the bill was obvious without providing data or evidence to support this claim. For example, one person stated, “Obviously, the scientific case for life has been made. We've all been through middle school [and] high school biology.” He went on to say, “We know that organisms that reproduce sexually when the sperm fertilized egg, there's a unique, genetically unique organism.”
Table 2 outlines the most common false claims made by anti-abortion proponents as well as scientific evidence refuting these claims.
Scientific and medical disinformation.
Examples of false claims | Evidence refuting these claims |
---|---|
Describing fetal cardiac activity as a “heartbeat” | Cardiac activity occurs long before the heart is developed ( ). |
Fetal cardiac activity ensures viability and “survivability” (confounding viability with risk of miscarriage) | While viability is determined by more than gestational age, experts in the field of fetal and maternal medicine commonly consider the point of viability to occur between 23–24 weeks gestation ( , ). Futhermore, periviable births, those near the limit of viability, are those that occur from 20 0/7 weeks to 25 6/7 weeks of gestation ( ). |
Abortions are harmful/more dangerous than giving birth | Legal abortions are extremely safe ( – , ). Risk of mortality from giving birth is 14× greater than for abortion ( ). |
Abortions prevent later pregnancies | Abortions have no effect on fertility ( ). They also appear to enable people to have later intended pregnancies. In a study following people 5 years after seeking an abortion, people who were able to get an abortion had higher overall pregnancy rates and higher intended pregnancy rates compared to people denied an abortion ( ). |
Another prominent strategy of anti-abortion proponents was attempting to redefine life and personhood from an ostensibly scientific perspective. One way they did this was through use of various words and phrases to promote a new standard of life and personhood. Throughout all the anti-abortion testimonies we analyzed, the term “heartbeat” was used 97 times when not referring to the bill itself; “baby” was used 62 times; “unborn” was used 45 times; “unborn child” was used 16 times; “personhood” was used eight times; and “pre-born” was used six times.
The word “heartbeat” was particularly instrumental to the anti-abortion arguments trying to redefine life from a scientific perspective, with many supporters of the bill framing their arguments around the heartbeat being the new standard for life. The primary legislative sponsor of the bill stated in his opening testimony, “…the heartbeat is a definite marker and a predictability of survival.” One pastor stated, “While not the beginning of life, the heartbeat is a universally recognized indicator of life.” Another speaker, the executive director of an anti-abortion non-profit, stated, “The absence of a heartbeat indicates death, then logically the presence of a heartbeat indicates life.”
Anti-abortion proponents also suggested that advances in science and technology have changed the standard for fetal viability and how the medical field understands life. For example, representative McCravy, H.3020's primary legislative sponsor, stated:
“There's also a consensus among medical experts, scientists, lawyers and ethicists that the standard of viability has changed. That we now know many more things about the unborn child that we did not know in the 1970s. So we've had so many advances in medical and scientific technology that have expanded our knowledge of prenatal life.”
Neither this representative nor anyone else making similar arguments cited evidence for the claim that advances in scientific technology had redefined the medical standards of viability or life. However, though there have been advances in care for pre-term deliveries, fetal viability occurs long after 6 weeks gestation. Births between 20 and 26 weeks are considered “periviable,” with viability depending on various factors surrounding a pregnancy ( 13 ).
In contrast to those who tried to redefine life and personhood at a fetal “heartbeat,” some anti-abortion proponents refused to use this as the new standard for life. For example, a medical professional in favor of the bill stated, “My expert medical testimony is that human life begins at conception. That was what I was told in medical school 40 years ago. That was true then. That's true now. Nothing has changed in the ensuing 40 years.” One anti-abortion proponent, who opposed the bill in favor of stricter legislation, stated:
“The heartbeat bill does not establish justice for all human beings at fertilization but chooses the biological benchmark which may occur and be detected for a month and a half or later after fertilization and allows all human beings in the womb prior to that point to be exterminated.”
Many supporters of H.3020 intertwined scientific claims with value or logic statements as the basis of moral arguments. Since science provided a new standard for detecting life, anti-abortion proponents argued it was clear that abortion after a “heartbeat” is detected is taking a life, which is immoral. Some who used this line of reasoning referred to it as “logical,” “rational,” or “common sense” when making their arguments. A pastor said, “Science and common sense tells us that a heartbeat signifies life,” while not following up with an explanation of what he meant by either “science” or “common sense.” Another speaker, a family physician, stated:
“You are logical and rational people, and I trust that you make your decisions based on good rationale and good logic and not on emotion. Life begins at conception and there is a heartbeat in every unborn child. Nothing changes that fact. That's logical, that's rational. And I trust that you make your decisions based on good logic and good rationale.”
The framing of H.3020 as the heartbeat bill provided an opportunity for anti-abortion advocates to claim a novel scientific standard for life, which made it easier for supporters of H.3020 to claim that their connection of scientific and moral arguments was logical.
Supporters of H.3020 made various arguments that framed abortion and those providing or seeking abortions as immoral. Moral arguments across the testimonies could be classified into five themes: (1) Promoting the (perceived) righteous cause of protecting the unborn; (2) Religion as the basis of morality; (3) Vilifying and stigmatizing the pro-choice movement; (4) Vilifying healthcare providers; and (5) Vilifying and stigmatizing people who get abortions.
Based on the assumptions that a “heartbeat”– or some other indicator of fetal development– signified human life, anti-abortion proponents argued that abortion after 6 weeks is murder. While many simply used the word murder (or related terms) to describe abortion, others attempted to explain why they believed abortion was equivalent to killing a person. Some supporters of the bill believed that life begins at conception and, hence, abortion before 6 weeks gestation should also be defined as murder. However, many argued that, since absence of a heartbeat is an indication of death, presence of a heartbeat indicates life. Hence, in “civilized” societies, abortion after detection of a fetal “heartbeat” is taking a life. Many promoted the fetal “heartbeat” as the new standard for life in a modern or “civilized society” that does not allow innocent humans to be killed. One person who provided testimony, the director of an anti-abortion non-profit, summarized this line of thinking:
“Another fact-based saying is if the absence of a heartbeat indicates death, then logically the presence of a heartbeat indicates life. In a civilized society, we should all agree that the human heartbeat is the objective scientific proof of life. In a civilized culture, we can all agree that it is barbaric and a savage act to kill an innocent, innocent member of the human family with a beating heart.”
Supporters of the bill called abortion genocide and both directly and indirectly compared it to historical injustices and atrocities. In their view, just as society's morals have progressed regarding historical atrocities, society must progress by adopting this new standard of life–the fetal “heartbeat.” One white male proponent of the bill said the following:
“If nothing else, history tends to judge people harshly based on the standards of the current day. Not at the time of the actual event. I never hear anyone try to justify slavery based on the standards of today. Women not having the right to vote seems ludicrous. The Jim Crow laws of the South seem cruel by today's standards. But what will we tell our grandkids about abortion when they ask why we had the chance to stop it? But we fell prey to political pressure and let the carnage continue. How would they judge us? Some will justify it as a right the mother has to do with her body as she wants, never once considering the future mother she may be carrying.”
To further demonstrate the morality of H.3020 and its advocates, supporters of the bill framed the unborn as a targeted and vulnerable group in need of special protections. To do this, they co-opted language and ideas from human rights movements, suggesting abortion is an inhumane practice that violates universal principals of morality. Human rights language, including terms such as “intrinsic value” and “dignity of human life,” was used to extend the rights of humans to embryos (which anti-abortion proponents refer to as “fetuses”). Thus, supporters framed this bill and its advocates as the true champions of morality and human rights. Indeed, many supporters touted their own commitment to the “value of life.” They urged representatives listening to do the same, adding that they believed the government is responsible for protecting life through banning abortions. One speaker co-opted human rights language by saying:
“Unlike pro-abortion advocates, the pro-life movement firmly believes in the value and dignity of each human life. That includes every single person in this room. And I want to tell each of you in this room, your life matters. Your life has intrinsic and immeasurable value because you are human.”
A legislative representative more explicitly framed abortion as a human rights issue:
“The U.S. Constitution, which all our laws must pursue, states in the Fourteenth Amendment: No state shall deprive any person of life without due process of law and order, not to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws regardless of the age, size, or dependent status. A child with a heartbeat should be treated with dignity. These unborn men and unborn women have human rights too. And yes, even children conceived through the terrible crime of rape have a right to life and justice. They have a right not to have their bodies mutilated, their choices eliminated, and their heartbeats stopped. I stand against abortion so passionately because it is the chief example in our time of the callous violation of human rights. It is our job in government to defend against this. Human children deserve to be defended.”
While religious rhetoric was sparse across the testimonies, some anti-abortion proponents used their primarily evangelical Christian religious beliefs as the foundation for their moral arguments about the value and definition of life. For example, speakers stated they supported the bill because they believed in the value and sanctity of life of the unborn, a belief informed by their religion. In addition to claiming to respect the “value of life,” speakers making religious arguments used multiple adjectives with moral implications to describe life, such as “precious,” “sacred,” and “dignity.” The following quote exemplifies many of the adjectives used to discuss their view on the “value of life” as well as the seamless connection speakers made between religious beliefs and morality:
“We want the heartbeat bill because we want to protect the God-given value and dignity of all human life, including our own. Unlike pro-abortion advocates, the pro-life movement firmly believes in the value and dignity of each human life. … Your life has intrinsic and immeasurable value because you are human. If we believe we can discard human life at its most helpless and most vulnerable, it cheapens the innate and immeasurable value that God bestowed upon each one of us at that very first moment of our own existence. Tiny, precious, and innocent lives are at stake in this legislation. But so is our very own worth and dignity.”
Anti-abortion proponents who discussed religion also used other tactics to connect their religious beliefs to the immorality of abortion. Some quoted biblical scripture as evidence that “life” in the womb is determined and created by God, with some speakers explicitly stating that life begins at conception. Others used anecdotes and personal stories. Some of these stories were about pregnant people who considered abortion yet decided to carry to term because of their religious beliefs. Other stories centered people whose mothers considered aborting them but did not. While religious speakers described the inherent value of “pre-born” life as bestowed by God in scripture, they often tied the worth of the people in these stories to their potential to advance Christianity.
In contrast to their portrayals of themselves and other advocates of H.3020, supporters of the bill framed the pro-choice movement and opponents of the bill as immoral. They framed the unborn as a vulnerable group, thereby claiming that pro-choice advocates were not only discriminatory but also proponents of child sacrifice and genocide. They further claimed pro-choice advocates devalue life and human rights and strategically dehumanize the unborn to achieve their goals. One supporter of the bill—a male physician and medical director for a crisis pregnancy center—compared societal approval of abortion to historical acceptance of chattel slavery and the Holocaust.
“So you think about throughout history to make something to be able to commit atrocities against a group of people. What society has done is dehumanized them. United States with slavery and Nazi Germany with the Jews. That's what they did. They said, 'Well, they're not human', right? That's what we did. Right. Shameful. That's what we're doing. That's what we're doing with the unborn child. … I think this is a blight on our nation. And I think there's a genocide, to which we're all going to be called by our maker.”
Supporters of the bill also vilified healthcare providers and clinics providing abortions, claiming they make exorbitant incomes from abortions while providing inadequate care and coercing people into getting abortions. One pastor questioned the motives and morality of a nearby healthcare provider offering abortions:
“This past weekend, I was at [name of medical center], which is one of the busiest abortion clinics in the southeast. One of the reasons it is, is because it's the cheapest. … But I quickly asked, how much money do they make off this one center? They own three. And the answer is four to five million dollars a year. And I was thinking, man, are they really here for women? Or are they here to line their pockets? … Our battle is against the evil. Our battle is against not anybody that's against this bill. Our battle is for flesh and blood. It's not against flesh and blood.”
Another speaker—a physician and medical director at a crisis pregnancy center—attacked Planned Parenthood:
“And one of the main reasons we're here today is money. This is money. And power. This is a multi-billion dollar business, abortion. And I'm telling you, I have so many patients who come to me and said ‘they didn't tell me about the risk of depression. They didn't tell me the risk I would get a perforated uterus and have a hysterectomy.’ I've seen that happen. ‘They didn't tell me about any of the risk of the suicidal thoughts and suicidal ideation.’ I have family members who have had an abortion who've never gotten over the depression from that. So we need to–if we're going to provide safe abortion–we need to make sure that people like Planned Parenthood who are making billions of dollars—half a billion of our tax dollars are going to Planned Parenthood– we need to make sure that they are properly counseling women on the not only physical risk of abortion, but the mental risk.”
In 2019, Planned Parenthood's total revenue, including both government funding and private donations, was $1.6 billion while its expenses were $1.5 billion ( 28 ). However, Planned Parenthood is prohibited from using any federal funding it receives on abortion services, and abortions account for only 3% of the total medical services provided at Planned Parenthood health centers ( 28 ). Furthermore, there is ample evidence that abortions are safer than childbirth ( 18 , 19 ) and other common medical procedures ( 29 ) and that people seeking an abortion who are able to get one fair better in terms of their short-term mental health ( 30 ) and longer-term physical health and financial well-being than people denied abortions ( 31 ).
Anti-abortion proponents used multiple tactics to both stigmatize abortion and malign people who receive abortions. They characterized people who receive abortions as lazy and irresponsible or selfish and immoral and stated their objections to “abortions of convenience,” defined by multiple speakers as having an abortion for social or economic reasons and not for the life of the pregnant person or because of rape or incest. While many of these speakers stated or implied that most abortions are done for “convenience,” none cited evidence for this claim.
Supporters of the bill described their aversion to “abortions of convenience” with statements like this from a legislative representative:
“Over 90% of the abortions that are done in the United States are what? They are done for the manner of convenience. Not because of life of the mother. Not because a rape or incest. But because of convenience issues.”
Another example came from a testifier who was an educator at a Christian university and the president of an anti-abortion non-profit: “The vast majority of abortions are obtained for social and economic reasons, not rape, incest, or life of mother. … Studies indicate that over 90% of women seek abortion for social and economic reasons.”
Some anti-abortion proponents who described people who get abortions as selfish also described them as victims. They claimed abortions are mentally, emotionally, and physically harmful to people who receive them. For example, one person described her own abortion as selfish, yet said that she and other people who get abortions are unaware of (what she perceived as) emotional repercussions of abortion:
“I got an abortion, and it was a heartless, selfish act of snuffing out a precious life for my convenience. Women don't know, nor are they told about, the guilt and the shame that they will carry the rest of their lives. Abortion doesn't just end the life of a baby. It hurts women, and it scars them for life. I have heard hundreds of testimonies, and I know many women will deny what I just said. They claim there have been no repercussions. However, even if they hide their guilt and their shame from themselves, or they deny it or bury it so deep that they don't feel anything anymore, they still live with it the rest of their lives.”
In contrast to this quote, researchers have found that, among people seeking abortions, those denied an abortion are more likely in the short-term to experience adverse mental health outcomes, such as anxiety, low self-esteem, and low life satisfaction compared to people who receive abortions ( 30 ). The person who said the previous quote went on to describe her husband's disdain for her past abortion, revealing the potential source of the guilt she felt for getting an abortion:
“Yesterday, my husband said to me, ‘You can be forgiven, but you have still taken a life.’ Heartless. For women who have had an abortion, those are fighting words because it's difficult to face the reality that we have taken a life. Abortion is a heartless act and the argument that women have a right to their own bodies is a smokescreen to hide the reality that they can't face.”
Another anti-abortion proponent who was an educator at a Christian university and the president of an anti-abortion non-profit implied that people who get abortions are victims because healthcare providers do not inform them of the risks of having an abortion. She used this argument to advocate for the new bill, which would require informed consent and provision of information about the “harms” of abortion to anyone seeking an abortion:
“For many of these women, abortion is not an act of liberation. Rather, it is a violent act of despair. Many of these women have indicated they would carry their child if they were not abandoned by the father, pressured by employers, or rejected by parents. Further, many women in the United States, unlike those in South Carolina, have not been guaranteed informed consent. … They undergo abortions with no knowledge of fetal development, or knowledge of alternatives, or knowledge of the risk involved. For many women, abortion is a skillfully marketed product to prey on the fears of women in crisis. When women discover the physical, mental, and emotional scars that often surface, it is too late. I’ve met many of these women myself.”
As demonstrated in the quote above, supporters of the bill framed people who get abortions as desperate victims by associating abortions with abuse and coercion. In legislative sessions on the inclusion of an exception in the bill for rape and incest, speakers focused more intently on actual victims of abuse seeking abortions. Some against the exception claimed abortion protects rapists because a baby is evidence of rape and that abortion perpetuates the trauma of victims. Conversely, they claimed that carrying a pregnancy to term provides deliverance, healing, and vindication to victims of rape and incest. This discourse around victims of rape, incest, and coercion served to stigmatize abortion as associated with abuse. A quote from one speaker–the founder and president of an anti-abortion organization–exemplifies this discourse:
“And the younger a girl is, the more likely it's someone in her household, family member who's been raping her. And the more likely that it's been going on for years. And guess who reveals the rape? The baby. Her baby is ultimately her hero who can deliver her out of that abusive situation. But we see time and time again how oftentimes it's her own mother who's trafficking her, who takes her to the abortion clinic where they cover up the rape and then send her right back for repeated abortion, after abortion, after abortion. … And it is absolutely absurd to suggest that somehow more violence brings healing, more violence in the exact place where she was traumatized is somehow going to bring healing. But babies do have a way of bringing healing. … And I am so concerned when people say that somehow, you know, she's going to be better off after an abortion, when studies show that she's four times more likely to die within the next year after the abortion. They have a higher rate of murder, suicide, overdose because, again, more violence doesn't bring healing”
As stated in previous sections, there is no evidence that abortions are associated with negative mental health outcomes. Indeed, people who are denied an abortion are more likely to experience poor mental health than people who get an abortion ( 30 ).
Our analysis of legislative testimony in support of H.3020, both by SC legislative representatives and the public, reveals that anti-abortion advocates primarily used scientific disinformation and moral arguments–based in their concepts of morality–to promote this bill. The only prior study to investigate anti-abortion arguments used in legislative hearings for a 6-week abortion ban came out of Georgia's 6-week ban, which was introduced in 2019, around the same time as SC H.3020. Many of the anti-abortion arguments and tactics we found in South Carolina were similar to those reported in the analysis of Georgia's ban ( 9 ), including misrepresenting scientific and medical findings, redefining life and personhood with the use of “fetal heartbeat” language, and comparisons of abortion to historical atrocities while framing opposition to abortion as defending human rights. However, anti-abortion proponents in South Carolina employed several arguments and strategies that were not found in the analysis of legislative hearings in Georgia. Findings unique to South Carolina included descriptions of biased and coercive care from medical professionals, use of value and logic statements based on scientific disinformation, use of religious rhetoric, and vilification of healthcare professionals and people seeking abortions.
In the current study, we found that blatant misrepresentation of science was commonly employed, with some speakers claiming there were scientific justifications for the ban without explaining these justifications and other speakers presenting opinions and anecdotal evidence as factual. This emphasis on medical and scientific arguments is consistent with anti-abortion arguments reported in an analysis of Georgia's 6-week ban. However, prior studies have found an historic lack of science-based arguments from anti-abortion activists, even within the last decade ( 32 ). The framing of this legislation as the “heartbeat bill” and the related scientific rationale used to ban abortions at 6 weeks may have allowed advocates of abortion restrictions to expand their rhetorical strategies by incorporating more scientific framing.
Though their scientific framing may have been relatively novel, anti-abortion advocates in the current study used scientific arguments as the basis for anti-abortion moral arguments that have long been used to promote abortion restrictions. Moral framing was prominent in the current analysis, with defenders of the bill providing arguments for why abortion was immoral and banning abortion was moral. This finding reflects a recent analysis of legislative discourse about anti-abortion policies, which found that morality frames were more common in discourse on abortion bans compared to discourse on other types of abortion restrictions ( 32 ).
The claim that fetal cardiac activity–which supporters of SC H.3020 inaccurately called a “heartbeat”–indicates life was fundamental to many of the moral arguments used by anti-abortion speakers. Using cardiac activity as a proxy for life and personhood, defenders of the ban asserted that abortion after detection of fetal cardiac activity is murder. Supporters of a similar 6-week abortion ban in Georgia in 2019 also used cardiac activity as a proxy for life and personhood ( 9 ). Advocates of abortion restrictions have long defended fetal personhood and “right to life” and claimed that abortion is murder ( 32 ). However, this novel and extreme legislation–deceptively named a “heartbeat bill”–gave anti-abortion advocates a new way to frame fetal personhood and connect supposedly scientific and moral arguments.
Anti-abortion advocates also endorsed the so-called morality of the 6-week ban by co-opting civil and human rights language and explicitly comparing their efforts to eradicate abortion to historical civil and human rights movements. This rhetorical strategy was also prominent in an analysis of public testimonies in support of a similar 6-week abortion ban in Georgia in 2019 ( 9 ). Co-option of and comparison to progressive, including civil rights, discourse have become common tactics in the anti-abortion space over the past decade ( 33 , 34 ). Prior studies have found that anti-abortion organizations and advocates appropriate the language of social justice organizations and movements, such as Black Lives Matter; they also frame abortion restrictions as moral by comparing abortion to slavery, eugenics, and genocide and equating their advocacy to the historical efforts to eradicate those atrocities ( 33 , 34 ).
Another tactic used by anti-abortion speakers in the current study was to frame the ban as sensible legislation by using phrases like “logical” and “common sense.” This type of language was not found in anti-abortion testimony for Georgia's 6-week ban ( 9 ). However, similar language was used during a congressional hearing for the 2014 federal Women's Health Protection Act, during which anti-abortion senators defended state abortion restrictions by referring to them as “common sense” legislation and claiming a majority of American people supported the restrictions ( 35 ). In an analysis of those hearings, Duffy (2015) argued that use of “common sense” language appeals to populist ideals by framing abortion restrictions as policies supported by and aligned with the values of sensible, average Americans. This rhetoric thus positions those opposing the “common sense” policies (in this case, abortion restrictions) as enemies of the American people. Duffy contends that this populist rhetoric in abortion policy discourse masks the damaging effects of anti-abortion legislation by focusing on conventional conservative talking points (e.g., arguments around states' rights and federal government overreach) rather than the actual impact of these bans on people's health ( 35 ).
Another theme in the current analysis that was not found in anti-abortion arguments for Georgia's 6-week ban ( 9 ) was negative portrayals of people involved in abortions, including providers and patients. Foundational to these negative portrayals was the claim that abortions are dangerous, which has been a common claim among U.S. anti-abortion advocates at least since the U.S. Supreme Court's Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision in 1992 ( 32 , 36 ). Anti-abortion proponents have used this false claim to frame abortion restrictions as benefitting rather than harming women ( 32 , 36 – 38 ). Claiming that abortions were harmful allowed proponents of the 6-week ban in South Carolina to both argue that abortion providers were deceiving patients about the risks of abortion and that abortion patients were being victimized.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision in 1992, abortion opponents have strategically vilified abortion providers, claiming that they mislead people about the risks of abortion ( 36 ). This theme remains prominent in anti-abortion discourse today ( 33 , 37 ). In the current study, we found explicit negative portrayals of abortion providers, with anti-abortion proponents endorsing inaccurate claims about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion and claiming that abortion providers were nefarious for not disclosing these supposed harms and for ostensibly profiting off people who get abortions. In contrast, anti-abortion healthcare providers who testified in support of SC H.3020 described situations in which they provided biased or coercive care to patients seeking abortions. This finding suggests anti-abortion medical professionals are the providers who are actually harming patients.
In the current study, anti-abortion proponents making moral arguments also vilified people who get abortions by describing them as either lazy, selfish, and immoral or desperate victims of poverty, abusive relationships, and healthcare providers. They claimed these people are duped or forced into having abortions. Some speakers also claimed that abortions further traumatized victims of abuse, leading to a downward spiral of other harmful behaviors, including drug use and suicide. This discourse on the circumstances and effects of abortion both stigmatized abortion and allowed supporters of the abortion ban to claim it would protect women.
Prior research has reported that anti-abortion advocates commonly promote lies about the harms of abortion in order to claim that abortion restrictions protect women, with some even declaring abortion opposition as a feminist stance ( 32 , 36 , 37 ). This rhetoric is part of what has been termed “mother-child” framing, a relatively recent strategy through which abortion opponents assert abortion restrictions promote the wellbeing of both babies (fetuses) and pregnant people ( 36 , 37 ). Claims that abortion restrictions protect women, are feminist, and are compatible with the wellbeing of mother and child have become more common in the post-Casey era ( 36 ). Before the 1992 Casey decision, anti-abortion proponents explicitly promoted fetal rights over the bodily autonomy of pregnant people; however, in recent decades, they have adopted a more “pro-woman” approach, in part to make abortion restrictions seem less radical ( 36 – 38 ). The recent rise of extreme abortion bans and the rhetoric promoting them (e.g., fetal “heartbeat” language) may suggest that anti-abortion strategies are regressing, with a renewed emphasis on fetal rights and personhood ( 37 ). Indeed, the current study and the analysis of anti-abortion rhetoric around Georgia's 6-week ban ( 9 ) suggest that personhood rhetoric is becoming more prominent among advocates of extreme abortion bans.
Claims that abortions are dangerous are false. Legal abortions are much safer than childbirth ( 18 , 19 ) and other common medical procedures ( 29 ). Furthermore, people seeking an abortion who are able to get one experience better short-term mental health ( 30 ) and longer-term physical health ( 20 ) and financial well-being ( 39 ) than people denied abortions. Negative experiences related to abortion (which appear to be infrequent) can likely be attributed to inequitable social systems that oppress the most vulnerable abortion patients and not due to abortion itself ( 40 , 41 ).
Religious arguments in the current study were sparse yet notable given their absence from anti-abortion arguments in legislative hearings for Georgia's 6-week abortion ban ( 9 ). In South Carolina, anti-abortion proponents used religion as the foundation of personal and societal morals by expressing how much they valued “life” in the womb, often tying this value and their definition of life to their Christian faith. Recent studies are mixed on the prominence of religious rhetoric in anti-abortion discourse. A 2013 analysis of anti-abortion discourse from anti-abortion forums, organizations, and parliamentary representatives in Canada found that religious arguments were not common ( 38 ); indeed, activists explicitly discouraged people from making religious arguments to support abortion restrictions, and scientific arguments appear to have replaced religious arguments for the basis of fetal personhood arguments ( 38 ). However, this analysis from Canada is dated, and the abortion landscape in Canada differs substantially from that in the United States. A more recent study of abortion discourse on Twitter found religious arguments were prominent in anti-abortion Tweets ( 42 ). Hence, the prominence of religious discourse may vary by platform. Additional investigation of the prevalence and effects of anti-abortion religious discourse in the United States is needed and may help abortion advocates counteract these arguments and develop their own messaging for religious audiences.
Our analysis had several limitations. We were unable to collect self-reported demographic information of anti-abortion proponents other than the legislators, so our estimation of participants' demographic characteristics is based on our perceptions of their race, gender, and age, which may be inaccurate. Furthermore, this analysis focused only on anti-abortion arguments, and further research is needed to analyze pro-abortion rhetoric used by those opposing abortion restrictions.
Restricting abortions has detrimental impacts on the health and well-being of people who can become pregnant ( 43 ). At this moment when reproductive rights are being stripped away in the United States, analyses of the discourse and strategies used to promote abortion restrictions are critical. In the current study, we found that arguments used during public legislative hearings to promote a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina were characterized by scientific disinformation and stigmatizing language around the morality of abortion. More research is needed to determine the optimal tactics to counter this rhetoric; However, advocates for reproductive rights, health, and justice may use findings on current anti-abortion tactics to inform their own strategies, including by explaining to the public and policymakers that current anti-abortion rhetoric is extremely harmful and inaccurate. As the struggle for reproductive rights and justice continues in the United States, abortion advocates must continue to document the dangerous strategies used by abortion opponents and learn from the global pro-abortion movement to develop strategies that will restore these rights.
We thank Dabney Evans and Subasri Narasimhan at Emory University for providing their codebook and helping guide development of our initial codebook; We also thank the Women's Rights and Empowerment Network for recording and making available all the legislative sessions and Abby Askins for assistance with checking the accuracy of transcriptions.
1 These estimates are based both on video footage as well as familiarity the third co-author has with the anti-abortion proponents providing testimony, based on her decades-long participation in abortion access hearings in the SC legislature.
2 A SC law passed in 2016 (S.C. CODE ANN. § 44-41-330(A)(1)(a)) requires people seeking abortions who have an ultrasound be given the opportunity to see their ultrasound image. However, it does not mandate that people seeking abortions have an ultrasound or view the ultrasound image if they do have one.
Ethics statement, author contributions.
VL was responsible for the codebook development, data coding and analysis, and manuscript development. EH was responsible for the codebook development, data coding and analysis, and contributed to manuscript development. DB was responsible for study design and contributed to the development of the codebook and the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Follow today
More Brands
In a blow for anti-abortion advocates, the Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone , meaning the commonly used drug can remain widely available.
The court found unanimously that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue.
President Joe Biden said in a statement that while the ruling means the pill can remain easily accessible, “the fight for reproductive freedom continues” in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago that overturned abortion rights landmark Roe v. Wade.
“It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states,” he added.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, wrote that while plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.
The plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury, meaning that “the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions,” he added.
“The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”
The legal challenge was brought by doctors and other medical professionals represented by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs,” said Erin Hawley, one of the group’s lawyers. She told reporters she is hopeful the underlying lawsuit can continue because three states — Idaho, Missouri and Kansas — have brought their own claims and have different arguments for standing.
By throwing out the case on such grounds, the court avoided reaching a decision on the legal merits of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting various restrictions, including one making the drug obtainable via mail, meaning the same issues could yet return to the court in another case.
Another regulatory decision left in place means women can still obtain the pill within 10 weeks of gestation instead of seven.
Likewise a decision to allow health care providers other than physicians to dispense the pill will remain in effect.
The court’s decision to roll back abortion rights two years ago led to a wave of new abortion restrictions in conservative states.
Then, the court suggested it was removing itself from the political debate over abortion, but with litigation continuing to rage over abortion access, the justices are continuing to play a pivotal role.
Abortion rights supporters welcomed the ruling, with Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, saying she was relieved at the outcome but angered about the case lingering in the court system so long.
“Thank goodness the Supreme Court rejected this unwarranted attempt to curtail access to medication abortion, but the fact remains that this meritless case should never have gotten this far,” she said in a statement.
Danco Laboratories, manufacturer of Mifeprex, the brand version of mifepristone, praised the ruling too, saying it was good for the drug approval process writ large.
In rejecting the challenge, the court “maintained the stability of the FDA drug approval process, which is based on the agency’s expertise and on which patients, health care providers and the U.S. pharmaceutical industry rely,” company spokeswoman Abigail Long said.
Anti-abortion groups expressed disappointment, saying that the ruling highlighted the importance of this year’s election in which Democrat Biden, who has pledged to defend abortion rights, faces off against Republican Donald Trump, who has the strong backing of conservatives who oppose abortion.
“Joe Biden and the Democrats are hell-bent on forcing abortion on demand any time for any reason, including DIY mail-order abortions, on every state in the country,” Marjorie Dannenfeiser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said.
If Trump were to win the election, his appointees to the FDA would be a position to impose new restrictions on mifepristone. Biden’s campaign manager, Julie Chavez-Rodriguez, alluded to the possibility in a call with reporters after the ruling. Calling the case “one tactic in a broader, relentless strategy” by anti-abortion activists, Chavez-Rodriguez said if Trump is elected, his advisers and allies would try to ban abortion nationwide “without the help of Congress or the court,” and also restrict access to contraception — a threat, she said, to blue as well as red states.
The mifepristone dispute is not the only abortion case currently before the court. It is also due to decide whether Idaho’s strict abortion ban prevents doctors in emergency rooms from performing abortions when a pregnant woman is facing dangerous complications.
Mifepristone is used as part of a two-drug FDA-approved regimen that is now the most common form of abortion in the United States.
Abortion is effectively banned altogether in 14 states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that backs abortion rights.
The FDA had the backing of the pharmaceutical industry, which has warned that any second-guessing of the approval process by untrained federal judges could cause chaos and deter innovation.
Last year, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a sweeping ruling that completely invalidated the FDA’s approval of the pill, leading to panic among abortion-rights activists that it would be banned nationwide.
The Supreme Court last April put that ruling on hold, meaning the pill remained widely available while litigation continued.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August then narrowed Kacsmaryk’s decision but left in place his conclusion that the FDA’s move to lift restrictions starting in 2016 was unlawful.
Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court. The court in December took up the Biden administration’s appeal in defense of the later FDA decisions, but it opted against hearing the challenge to the original approval of mifepristone in 2000.
The Supreme Court focused solely on the later FDA action, including the initial 2021 decision that made the drug available by mail, which was finalized last year.
This article first appeared on NBCNews.com .
Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News Digital.
Health & wellness.
Diet & fitness.
Women's health.
COMMENTS
Abortion should be illegalized because it is tantamount to murder as it entails the termination of the life of an already living creature. After four weeks of pregnancy, the developing embryo already has a pumping heart, and the appearance of mouth, ears, nose, limbs, and brain follows closely. During that time, there is the possibility of ...
An Argumentative Essay. The debate over whether abortion should be made illegal is a deeply divisive issue, marked by moral, ethical, and legal considerations. On one hand, proponents of making abortion illegal argue that it is a moral and ethical wrong, asserting that the fetus has a right to life from conception. ... In the United States, 14 ...
In conclusion, the issue of the legality of abortion is complex and multifaceted, requiring a careful examination of various perspectives and considerations. By exploring the historical, legal, ethical, socio-economic, and personal aspects of the debate, we can gain a deeper understanding of the intricacies surrounding this contentious issue.
There is a robust international market in misoprostol across the world today—particularly in countries where abortion is strictly banned. 31 Even in Central America, which boasts the world's strictest abortion bans, one in three pregnancies ends in abortion, largely induced by medicines purchased online or on the street. 32 Americans ...
ABSTRACT. In this essay, we explore the logic behind restrictions on abortion and seek possible rhetorical alternatives by turning to an analysis of women's later abortion narratives published between 2016 and 2020 in the aftermath of Donald Trump's two most nationally visible remarks about "late-term" abortion.
Decent Essays. 551 Words. 3 Pages. Open Document. Discursive Essay on Abortion. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. If a woman falls pregnant and she does not wish to go through with the pregnancy then she may choose to have an abortion. Abortion is a controversial issue, some people say it is ok to abort a baby but others are strongly ...
The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the ""Argument versus Argument,"" or, ""Block-by-Block"" format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments ...
The Rhetoric That Shaped The Abortion Debate Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Linda Greenhouse examines the public discourse that led to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans' views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this ...
The decision to keep the child should not be left up solely to the woman. Yes, it is her body that the child grows in, however once that child is birthed it is now two people's responsibility ...
Discursive Essay On Legalizing Abortion. Decent Essays. 651 Words; 3 Pages; Open Document. ... (1973) as pro-life advocates and pro-choice advocates go neck to neck on whether the process should be banned or remain legal. According to APA (American Psychological Association), abortion is the "medical or surgical termination of a pregnancy and ...
The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests. A June 2, 2022 Gallup poll , 55% of Americans identified as "pro-choice," the highest percentage since 1995. 39% identified as "pro-life," and 5% ...
Part 2 will be devoted to pieces that focus on women's experiences of abortion - for example, decision-making, stigma, and post-abortion distress - and that examine how women's experiences are embedded in the discursive, institutional, and material contexts of their lives.
"Ban" is not a medical term; people across the political spectrum on abortion define it differently. The word has two main rhetorical functions, political discourse experts said.
Views on whether abortion should be legal, and in what ...
As abortion opponents told The New York Times, "saving a baby with a beating heart" is powerful. In response, activists working to keep abortion legal have introduced their own weaponized ...
7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked
In this paper, I begin to address this issue, drawing on insights from discursive psychology (for example, Edley, 2001; Potter & Wetherell, 1987) to explore how women in England talk about having had an abortion during research interviews.In contrast to psychological approaches that treat language as a means to access a speaker's "internal" identity, discursive psychology explores how ...
This essay contrasts the reform rhetorics that were used to legalize abortion in the US with current anger-driven rhetorics surrounding abortion rights. Applying a materialist both/and feminist perspective it argues for the ethics and efficacy of the both/and rhetorical strategies used in the reform era.
In recent years, stigma has become a central focus within research concerning women's experiences of abortion (Hoggart, 2015; Purcell, 2015).Drawing on Goffman's (1963) analysis of the social construction of stigma, Kumar, Hessini and Mitchell (2009) define abortion stigma "as a negative attribute ascribed to women who seek to terminate a pregnancy that marks them, internally or ...
The Case Against Abortion. A striking thing about the American abortion debate is how little abortion itself is actually debated. The sensitivity and intimacy of the issue, the mixed feelings of ...
Published June 8, 2022 Updated July 1, 2022. The United States Supreme Court overruled the landmark Roe v. Wade case on June 24, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion in a monumental ...
Supporters of a similar 6-week abortion ban in Georgia in 2019 also used cardiac activity as a proxy for life and personhood . Advocates of abortion restrictions have long defended fetal personhood and "right to life" and claimed that abortion is murder . However, this novel and extreme legislation-deceptively named a "heartbeat bill ...
Calling the case "one tactic in a broader, relentless strategy" by anti-abortion activists, Chavez-Rodriguez said if Trump is elected, his advisers and allies would try to ban abortion ...