The right to life movement: sources,development, and strategies

This article considers the history of the anti-abortion movement by first reviewing and assessing current images and interpretations of the movement, including the negative images used by the mass media as well as the interpretation which categorizes the movement as one of moral and political conservatism and that set out by Kristin Luker which sees the conflict between anti-abortion and pro-choice women as being between women who have lived radically different lives. The second section of the essay sets forth an explanation of the social sources and context of the pro-life movement, which is diverse and complex because it is embraced by those who see abortion as a civil rights question, as a family values issues, as a class/cultural issue, as a Church-related issue, as a gender issue, as a right-to-life issue embracing euthanasia, or as a movement of political conservatives. The institutional origins and development of the movement are explored in the next section. The next two section are devoted to two phases of the movement's search for a strategy. The first phase involved an attempt to use educational materials designed to reveal the reality rather than the abstract aspects of abortion. After Roe vs. Wade, attaching a "Human Life Amendment" to the constitution became a strategic goal. The second phase involved attempting to reverse the Roe decision by gaining the appointment of pro-life jurists to the Supreme Court. The pro-life movement entered national politics through the efforts of Catholic Bishops, the emergence of the New Right, and its own increasing political sophistication. The final section of the essay considers the situation after the Supreme Court's decision in Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, which allowed states to restrict abortion. This decision precipitated a decline in support for the anti-abortion forces because the American public would rather have completely free access to abortion than a complete ban. The movement continues to have strength, however, and will likely neither ultimately succeed nor completely disappear from the political landscape.     

"The Civil Rights Movement of the 1990s?": The anti-abortion movement and the struggle for racial justice

In 1964, Claude and Jeanne Nolen, who were white, joined an interracial NAACP team intent on desegregating local restaurants in Austin, Texas as a test of the recently passed Civil Rights ACt. Twenty-five years later, the Nolens pleaded "no contest" in a courtroom for their continued social activism. This time the issue was not racial segregation, but rather criminal trespassing for blockading abortion clinics with Operation Rescue. The Nolens served prison sentences for direct action protests that they believe stemmed from the same commitment to Christianity and social justice as the civil rights movements.Despite its relationship to political and cultural conservatism, the anti-abortion movement since Roe v. Wade (1973) was also a product of the progressive social movements of the turbulent sixties. Utilizing oral history interviews and organizational literature, the article explores the historical context of the anti-abortion movement, specifically how the lengthy struggle for racial justice shaped the rhetoric, tactics, and ideology of the anti-abortion activists. Even after political conservatives dominated the movement in the 1980s, the successes and failures of the sixties provided a cultural lens through which grassroots anti-abortion activists forged what was arguably the largest movement of civil disobedience in American history.     

Creating Choice: A Community Responds to the Need for Abortion and Birth Control, 1961-1973

Creating Choice is an important collection of edited interviewswith individuals involved in the movement to secure women'saccess to birth control and abortion in western Massachusettsin the decades surrounding the Supreme Court's pivotal rulings,Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision that legalized contraceptiveuse by married couples, and Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion rightscase. The collection broadens the historical treatment of thismovement, introducing activists from grassroots women's organizationsand accentuating the contributions of professionals—clergy,medical practitioners, and health educators—who establishednetworks and services that made free choice possible for somewomen even before state law extended     

Healthcare not airfare! Art,abortion and political agency in Ireland

Ireland’s near-total abortion ban was, in effect, a policy of offshoring abortions. Before the May 2018 vote to repeal it, the 8th Amendment allowed for conservative and nationalist groups to celebrate the idea of Ireland as an ‘abortion-free’ territory, while forcing women to travel to England for abortion or self-manage abortions with illegal pills at home. Artists in the Irish pro-choice movement have contested the public silence around abortion and abortion-travel; in doing so they have disrupted the political narrative of ‘abortion-free Ireland’ by symbolically re-placing Irish abortion seekers in public spaces. These place-based artistic interventions have larger significance for the changing relationship between women, reproduction, and the state. Drawing on ongoing debates in critical and feminist geopolitics, this article addresses the relationship between geopolitics, art, and political agency to theorize the role of pro-choice Irish artworks in challenging the enforced silence that surrounded abortion travel. It builds on geographical engagement with Jacques Rancière to address the feminist geopolitics critique of geopolitical scales and sites of ‘serious’ geopolitics. The article examines three artworks that depict Irish women’s experiences of abortion-related travel to England as part of the larger political campaign for liberalization of Ireland’s abortion laws.     

Constructing British Authority in Australasia: Charles Cooper and the Legal Status of Aborigines in the South Australian Supreme Court,c. 1840–60

In 1840 the South Australian judge Charles Cooper wrote an opinion in which he suggested that Aborigines who had not been in contact with British settlers were not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The resulting controversy led the Colonial Office to clarify its view on the subjecthood of Aborigines within the colony and the colonial courts' jurisdiction over all subjects in the colony. The criminal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over Aborigines became politically important because it raised wider questions of imperial authority and colonial policy. By placing Cooper's views in a broader Australasian perspective, the formation of Colonial Office policy and the distinctions between legal categories that informed that policy may be better appreciated. Cooper continued to question the general application of Supreme Court jurisdiction to Aborigines into the late 1840s. This caused a clash with Lieutenant-Governor Robe, who felt that any weakness in the formal authority or jurisdiction of the courts threatened the ability of the government to implement effective policies.     

Women's rights and misogyny in Brazil: An interview with Debora Diniz

In 2018 anthropologist and feminist Debora Diniz appeared as an expert witness in a Supreme Court hearing that addressed decriminalizing abortion. After receiving death threats, she was placed under police protection and forced to go into hiding. The police discovered that a right-wing extremist gang plotted an attack against her, and Diniz had to go into exile abroad, a fate she shares with several other academics working on women's rights and economic and racial inequalities. In this interview, Diniz reflects on the Brazilian political climate and its consequences for academics, freedom, women's rights and healthcare.     

A Transformed Triangle: Court, Congress, and Presidency in Civil Rights

The relative permeability of the three elements of a triangle-the Supreme Court, Congress, and the president-to civil rights interest groups has varied over time. For almost two decades after World War II, the Supreme Court was the groups' preferred arena because Congress was resistant and presidents could thus do little or were hesitant to act. For a brief time in the mid-1960s the president and Congress became supportive of civil rights groups' claims while the Court also remained accessible. Starting in the late 1960s executive and legislative support for civil rights moderated, with presidential support declining significantly in the 1980s. When the Supreme Court adopted that latter stance, Congress became the body through which to protect civil rights by reversing the Court's decisions. In this examination of the "transformed triangle" in civil rights policymaking, we look at this change over time and at "flip-flops" in litigation as one administration changes the position espoused by its predecessor, and we also give some attention to the Supreme Court's response to congressional reversal of its rulings.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

Almost anyone who can read would describe the Supreme Court of the United States as a legal body–an institution that says what the law is in the context of deciding cases. May the Court also be fairly described as a political institution? Even to pose the question raises eyebrows, because Americans commonly use the word “political” to refer to partisan politics—that persistent struggle between organized groups called political parties to control public offices, public resources, and the nation’s destiny. In this sense of the word, the federal courts are expected today to be “above politics,” meaning that judges are supposed to refrain from publicly taking sides in elections, from otherwise jumping into the arena of electoral combat, 2 or from deciding cases based on the popularity of the litigants.3 While democratic theory anticipates that elected officials will answer to the people, the rule of law envisions something different: an abiding and even‐handed application by the judiciary of the Constitution and statutes shaped by the people and their representatives.     

The Arlington Cemetery Case: A Court and a Nation Divided

Seventeen years after the Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, his eldest son won a sweeping victory over the federal government in the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, 1882, the Supreme Court upheld a federal trial court's ruling that the United States government's claim of title to Arlington National Cemetery rested on an invalid tax sale. The Justices thus affirmed the lower court's verdict that George Washington Custis Lee (“Custis Lee”), eldest son of Mary and Robert E. Lee, held legal title to Arlington. The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's decision to permit Custis Lee to bring suit against the government officers who occupied Arlington. On the latter point, the Justices split 5 to 4, with a majority ruling for Custis Lee. The outcome of United States v. Lee, commonly known as the Arlington case, made it clear that the Lee family, and not the United States government, owned Arlington.     

PRESSURE POLITICS REVISITED: THE ANTI-ABORTION CAMPAIGN*

This article focuses on the anti-abortion campaign as an extreme example of pressure group operations. After a review of the history of the abortion controversy, the recent activities of anti-abortion groups are assessed in the state of Pennsylvania. A comparison to the Anti-Saloon League is examined, and the article concludes with speculations about the probable consequences and future of such closely defined single interest groups.     

From Normative Debates to Comparative Methodology: The Three Waves of Post-Charter Supreme Court Scholarship in Canada

This article surveys the literature on the Supreme Court of Canada following the 1982 introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and argues it has taken place in three distinct “waves.” The first involved tentative, prospective, and normative arguments about the impact of the Charter on national unity and Canada’s political institutions. The second was characterized by the legitimacy debate, the dialogue debate, and qualitative examination of how other political actors responded to Supreme Court decisions. By contrast, the third wave, initiated by American scholars drawing from American research, has been less normative, more comparative, and methodologically rigorous. While this comparative shift has been beneficial, the retreat from normative questions contributes to a misplaced sense that important debates are now settled. We urge scholars to engage in intellectual cross-fertilization by drawing from third-wave contributions to address normative questions about the Supreme Court’s increasingly important role in Canadian politics.     

A Women's Health Issue?: Framing Post-Abortion Syndrome in the 1980s

In the 1980s, a subset of anti-abortion activists in the US claimed the existence of ‘post-abortion syndrome’ (PAS), a mental illness resulting from the trauma of abortion. Appropriating vocabulary from 1970s feminist health activism, these anti-abortion activists argued against the main goal of that movement, reproductive justice. Instead, conservative and essentialist PAS activists argued ‘aborted women’ needed to take control of their health by telling their stories of victimisation. Using interviews, congressional hearings and contemporary texts, this article uses PAS to discuss tensions over women's mental health amid the 1980s' backlash.     

Democracy in Justice Kennedy's America: Reading Obergefell with Tocqueville

Justice Anthony Kennedy cites Alexis de Tocqueville in support of the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. But Kennedy's citation leaves much out of Tocqueville's original text. Looking at what Kennedy erases in his quotation of Tocqueville indicates some of the broader cultural and historic erasures that are present in the Obergefell decision (and in the Supreme Court's latter-day treatment of marriage and the family in general). Standing Obergefell next to Tocqueville yields suggestive possibilities for evaluating the evolution of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence—and recent American political thought, more generally speaking—on questions of marriage and family. Specifically, reading Obergefell with Tocqueville reveals the intellectual and political weakness of the contemporary Supreme Court.     

Limits to Democratic Development in Civil Society and the State: The Case of Santo Domingo

Some scholars see civil society as key to democratization of the political system. In this view, pressure from civil society forces democratization of the state. However, this disregards the fact that changes in civil society's behaviour require changes in political society — changes are reciprocal. The demand–making strategies of grassroots organizations in the Dominican Republic in 1999 provide a good example of this dynamic: the incomplete nature of the democratic transition (specifically, the persistence of paternalism and clientelism) constrained the democratic strategy choices of the civil society organizations. Just as democratization within political society is inconsistent and incomplete, so will be the demand–making strategies of the grassroots towards the state. The Dominican case is of particular interest as it illustrates the blend of personalized and institutionalized elements characteristic of democratic transition.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

Laments about federal judges, Supreme Court Justices in particular, are nearly as old as the Republic. Those who say otherwise perhaps have either poor memories or a need to read more history. True, the Court has not been continuously caught up in strife, but controversies have occurred often enough to make Court-bashing a routine part of American political life.     

Speaking of silence,speaking of art,abortion and Ireland

Sounding the Depths a collaborative installation by Pauline Cummins and Louise Walsh, 1992 reclaimed the female body appropriated by the Eight Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland and symbolically opened it up to speak and even laugh in defiance of patriarchal and heteronormative definitions of “woman”. First exhibited in 1992, the artwork was addressed to the silencing of women about abortion and other denigrated bodily experiences in a deeply repressive social and political climate. More recent artworks which challenge how women’s reproductive bodies are controlled by the state evidence the continued relevance of these themes as related to the Irish contexts, North and South. This essay considers how art and contemporary pro-choice arts activism explores ways of “saying the unsayable” when abortion is criminalised, stigmatised and largely experienced secretly and silently, to transform its symbols and discourse.     

The Clerk, the Thief, His Life as a Baker: Ashton Embry and the Supreme Court Leak Scandal

On December 16, 1919, Ashton Fox Embry, law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna, abruptly resigned from the position he had held for almost nine years. His explanation? His fledgling bakery business required his undivided attention. Newspapers that morning hinted at a different reason: Embry resigned because he had conspired with at least three individuals to use inside knowledge of upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions to profit on Wall Street.2 A grand jury returned an indictment against Embry and his associates a few months later, and Embry’s argument that he had committed no crime ultimately reached the Supreme Court, the very institution he was accused of betraying. Despite the sensational headlines and fierce legal battle arising from his indictment, the United States Attorney quietly dismissed Embry’s case in 1929, almost ten years after the story had broken. Few Court scholars have ever heard of Embry, and the memory of Embry, much like the case against him, has disappeared with time.3 This article unravels the “Supreme Court Leak Case” by reconstructing what happened almost eighty years ago.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

"In law, also, men make a difference," ¹ counseled Felix Frankfurter the year before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Frankfurter highlighted one of the three critical components of judicial decision-making in constitutional law: alongside the text of the Constitution itself and the cases that pose various questions for decision are the women and men who answer those questions. Those answers, as Frankfurter believed, are invariably influenced by the values Justices bring with them to the Bench. Yet he was expressing no newfound truth, but an awareness that had been apparent for a long time. "Impressed with a conviction that the true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government," President George Washington wrote future Attorney General Edmund Randolph in 1789, "I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of our country and the stability of its political system." To be sure, the Court's role in the political system was unclear, but Washington realized the impact the Court might have in the young Republic. This required, he told Randolph, "the selection of the fittest characters to expound the laws and dispense justice." ² And as he filled the six seats Congress had authorized for the Supreme Court, the first President made sure that each nominee was a strong supporter of the new Constitution.     

The Development of the Supreme Court Practice of Calling for the Views of the Solicitor General

"When the Supreme Court invites you, that's the equivalent of a royal command. An invitation from the Supreme Court just can't be rejected." ¹ The guest most frequently invited to the Supreme Court is the Solicitor General. Even before the practice of the Supreme Court calling for the views of the Solicitor General process developed, the Court occasionally invited the Solicitor General to participate as amicus in important cases by submitting a brief and/or participating in oral arguments before the Court. ² As then–Solicitor General Simon E. Sobeloff remarked to then–Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a 1954 letter about the landmark school desegregation cases, "The Supreme Court has expressly extended an invitation to the United States to participate in the reargument. While this by no means compels participation, such an invitation is not to be lightly declined." ³     

Public Diplomacy in the U.S. Supreme Court: The Warren Years—Part I

The Prime Minister of the Republic of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his daughter, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, wandered down the hallway adorned with portraits of Justices in the U.S. Supreme Court building before entering the East Conference Room. There, they were warmly greeted by Chief Justice Earl Warren and his wife, Nina, who had been the Prime Minister's guests in New Delhi only four months earlier. In Washington, Nehru was the special guest of the Warrens, the first ruling head of state to be honored with a formal dinner at the Supreme Court. In attendance were a small but powerful delegation of Indian diplomats and most of the Justices and their wives. In the crisp evening of December 16, 1956, the temperature had dropped to 39 degrees, and the Prime Minister wore a black achkan, the South Asian coat that Americans came to call “a Nehru jacket,” adorned with his trademark red rose in the breast pocket and a white Congress cap. The Indian ladies dressed in striking saris, while the Western women wore long formal gowns.