Qualitative analysis of anti-abortion discourse used in arguments for a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina
- PMID: 37066038
- PMCID: PMC10098009
- DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2023.1124132
Qualitative analysis of anti-abortion discourse used in arguments for a 6-week abortion ban in South Carolina
Abstract
Background: On June 24, 2022, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, leaving abortion legislation entirely up to states. However, anti-abortion activists and legislators have organized for decades to prevent abortion access through restrictive state-level legislation. In 2019, South Carolina legislators proposed a bill criminalizing abortion after 6 weeks gestation, before most people know they are pregnant. The current study examines the anti-abortion rhetoric used in legislative hearings for this extreme abortion restriction in South Carolina. By examining the arguments used by anti-abortion proponents, we aim to expose their misalignment with public opinion on abortion and demonstrate that their main arguments are not supported by and often are counter to medical and scientific evidence.
Methods: We qualitatively analyzed anti-abortion discourse used during legislative hearings of SC House Bill 3020, The South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act. Data came from publicly available videos of legislative hearings between March and November 2019, during which members of the public and legislators testified for and against the abortion ban. After the videos were transcribed, we thematically analyzed the testimonies using a priori and emergent coding.
Results: Testifiers (Anti-abortion proponents) defended the ban using scientific disinformation and by citing advances in science to redefine "life." A central argument was that a fetal "heartbeat" (i.e., cardiac activity) detected at 6 weeks gestation indicates life. Anti-abortion proponents used this to support their argument that the 6-week ban would "save lives." Other core strategies compared anti-abortion advocacy to civil rights legislation, vilified supporters and providers of abortion, and framed people who get abortions as victims. Personhood language was used across strategies and was particularly prominent in pseudo-scientific arguments.
Discussion: Abortion restrictions are detrimental to the health and wellbeing of people with the potential to become pregnant and to those who are pregnant. Efforts to defeat abortion bans must be grounded in a critical and deep understanding of anti-abortion strategies and tactics. Our results reveal that anti-abortion discourse is extremely inaccurate and harmful. These findings can be useful in developing effective approaches to countering anti-abortion rhetoric.
Keywords: abortion laws; abortion rhetoric; anti-abortion; attitudes toward abortion; discourse; legislation; policy; pro-life movement.
© 2023 Lambert, Hackworth and Billings.
Conflict of interest statement
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.
Similar articles
-
Can Congress settle the abortion issue?Hastings Cent Rep. 1982 Jun;12(3):20-8. Hastings Cent Rep. 1982. PMID: 7107237
-
A narrative analysis of anti-abortion testimony and legislative debate related to Georgia's fetal "heartbeat" abortion ban.Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020 Dec;28(1):1686201. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2019.1686201. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020. PMID: 31892281 Free PMC article.
-
"A daily reminder of an ugly incident … ": analysis of debate on rape and incest exceptions in early abortion ban legislation in six states in the southern US.Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2023 Dec;31(1):2198283. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2023.2198283. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2023. PMID: 37133819 Free PMC article.
-
Fetal viability as a threshold to personhood. A legal analysis.J Leg Med. 1995 Dec;16(4):607-36. doi: 10.1080/01947649509510995. J Leg Med. 1995. PMID: 8568420 Review.
-
Legal abortion: the impending obsolescence of the trimester framework.Am J Law Med. 1988;14(1):69-108. Am J Law Med. 1988. PMID: 3068986 Review.
Cited by
-
Accuracy and Misleadingness of Anatomical and Embryological Statements in State-Level Abortion Ban Legislation in the United States.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2025 Mar;57(1):17-24. doi: 10.1111/psrh.70001. Epub 2025 Feb 28. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2025. PMID: 40018954 Free PMC article.
-
Contested narratives: a qualitative analysis of abortion testimonies in Louisiana legislature.Front Glob Womens Health. 2025 Apr 17;6:1533813. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2025.1533813. eCollection 2025. Front Glob Womens Health. 2025. PMID: 40313360 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Guttmacher Institute. Interactive map: US abortion policies and access after Roe. New York City: Guttmacher Institute; (2022). Available at: https://states.guttmacher.org/policies/ (Accessed August 18, 2022).
-
- Kirstein M, Jones R, Philbin J. One month post-Roe: At least 43 abortion clinics across 11 states have stopped offering abortion care. New York City: Guttmacher Institute; (2022). Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/07/one-month-post-roe-least-43-a... (Accessed August 18, 2022).
-
- Guttmacher Institute. State Policy Trends 2021: The Worst Year for Abortion Rights in Almost Half a Century (2021). Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/12/state-policy-trends-2021-wors... (Accessed May 12, 2022).
-
- Guttmacher Institute. State Policy Trends at Midyear 2022: With Roe About to Be Overturned, Some States Double Down on Abortion Restrictions (2022). Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/state-policy-trends-midyear-2... (Accessed October 31, 2022).
-
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Guide to Language and Abortion (2022).
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources