The pro-life and pro-choice movements arose during the late 1960s on either side of the debate over legalized abortion. There are sharp ideological and political differences between these groups, beginning with the definition of whether a pregnant women carries a “fetus” or an “unborn child.” The terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are themselves politically loaded and did not come into wide usage until the late 1960s. Some activists on both sides of the issue prefer “antiabortion” and “pro-abortion,” but this nomenclature has not come into widespread use.
Pro-life advocates believe life begins at conception, and maintain that the unborn child is entitled to equal protections under the law guaranteeing life, health, and wellbeing. Comparing themselves to the abolitionists of the antebellum period, pro-life supporters argue that regardless of a court’s decision, a mother has no more right to kill an unborn child than slave owners had to kill their slaves. Pro-choice advocates believe that abortion is not an issue of life, but involves a question of whether a woman has the right to control her body. They argue that any law that interferes with a woman’s sovereignty over her body is a violation of her basic human rights and her constitutional right to privacy.
Both pro-life and pro-choice positions include larger, often unspoken, social implications. Pro-life groups argue that abortion harms the family because it deprives parents of the responsibilities inherent in marital relationships and in conception. Though not all pro-life advocates are
Religious, most believe that abortion is an offense against God’s will. Pro-life advocates fear that abortion cheapens the value of human life. Pro-choice groups view abortion as one of a number of modern medical advances, including contraception, that have liberated women from the bonds of unwanted motherhood, allowing them to make considered choices about if and when to start a family. A few pro-choice adherents contend that abortion is necessary to curb the prospect of overpopulation, and thus represents a commitment to environmental conservation. This latter position, however, is not a major thrust of the pro-choice movement.
In the 1960s most states allowed “therapeutic” abortions to save the life of a mother, but these laws were restrictive. In 1969 members of Planned Parenthood of America formed the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) as a political arm of the newly formed prochoice movement. Only 16 states chose to legalize abortion in 1970; the remaining 33 chose to retain their prohibitions. (In 1967 the states of Colorado and California undertook reform of their abortion laws to allow easy access for legalized abortion.) In 1973 the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton overrode law restricting abortion.
The pro-life movement solidified immediately, following the 1973 Court ruling, when the Catholic Conference of Bishops’ Division on Family Life organized the National Right to Life Committee. During the 1970s, pro-life groups directed their efforts toward passing a Right to Life Amendment to the federal Constitution, explicitly extending legal protection to what they see as unborn children, and thereby overturning the legal basis for Roe and Doe. Concurrently, many pro-choice groups, including Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the National Organization fOR Women (NOW), integrated abortion rights as a necessary component to feminism and the women’s liberation movement, and began advocating the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as a further guarantee of existing abortion laws.
The deep polarization between the pro-choice and pro-life movements made any constitutional change on the issue of abortion impossible. The effort to pass a Right to Life Amendment died in Congress in 1981 and pro-life advocates were forced to focus their efforts toward alternative legislative restrictions on abortion in each state.
Both movements remained vital players in national politics, forcing candidates to declare their position on abortion, which often served as a litmus test for constituent support. The division over abortion began to follow partisan lines, after Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice organizations increasingly supported Democratic candidates and issues, while pro-life organizations, such as National Right to Life,
American Right to Life Action, and National Pro-Life Alliance, supported Republicans.
The strongly pro-life Republican presidents Ronald W. Reagan and George H. W. Bush used their offices to veto pro-choice legislation originating in the Demo-cratic-controlled Congress. With tacit support from the administration, pro-life groups launched massive demonstrations in Washington, D. C., and in front of abortion clinics across the country, in an effort to support the rights of the unborn. During the late 1980s, a subset of pro-life supporters joined activist groups such as Operation Rescue and the Pro-Life Action League, which used nonviolent methods to block the entrances of abortion clinics, preventing women from access to abortion facilities. Thousands of Operation Rescue members were arrested for trespassing between 1986 and 1989. Abortion providers and pro-choice groups responded by suing the protestors under the Racketeer Ineluenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which carries with it very harsh penalties, resulting in a dramatic decline in the number of intrusive demonstrations.
After the 1992 election of the strongly pro-choice William J. Clinton, most of the previous administrations’ pro-life policies were reversed through a series of executive orders and legislation, including the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which restored federal funding for abortions; and the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (face), which provided heavy fines and jail terms for protestors who interfered with access to abortion clinics. The last measure was in response to increasing violence on the part of some pro-life activists, including violent assaults against abortion doctors and clinics and the murder of Dr. David Gumo by Michael Griffen in 1993. now and Planned Parenthood alleged that pro-life advocates, particularly Operation Rescue, were a violent radical movement, referring to them as the “pro-life mafia.” The mainstream pro-life movement denounced acts of violence by what was seen as a small, unrepresentative, faction within the movement, while at the same time arguing that the movement’s rights to peaceful protest and free speech were being violated by acts such as FACE.
See also Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health; Amendments to the U. S. Constitution; birth control; CAMPAIGN EINANCE; PoLITICAL PARTIEs; ScHLAELY, PhYLLIs; WeBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE
Health Services; women’s rights and status.
Further reading: Donald T. Critchlow, Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion and the Federal Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); Cynthia Gorney, Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).
—Aharon W Zorea
World History
