6. Multilevel Logistic Regression: Predicting Incidents of “Protect the Lives of
6.3 Regression Results
6.3.1 Internal Movement Factors
Hypothesis 1 predicted that an increase in the proportion of authors associated with movements and SMOs whose broader ideological- and organizational-agendas include a
commitment to protecting patients’ access to healthcare will result in an increase in the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most common “protect life” frame in a legal brief when controlling for the brief’s supporting party and type. The results of Models 1 and 5 support this hypothesis. The results indicate that we should expect the “protect the lives of patients” frame to be used more often when there is a higher proportion of brief authors associated with left social movements (e.g., the National Organization for Women, Physicians for Reproductive Health, and the ACLU).
Movement ideology provides its supporters with a framework for how to identify, understand, and combat a particular issue or set of issues by linking a movement’s identity with the frames that its members adopt (Hunt, Benford, & Snow 1994; Klandermans 1997). By their very definition, framing processes involve the use of shared meanings and definitions to invoke claims on behalf of a movement’s members (Snow & Benford 1988). To that end, scholars have empirically demonstrated that movement and organizational identity131 influence framing strategies (Evans 1997; Steinberg 1999; Esacove 2004).
For example, Rohlinger (2002) found in her interview data with Concerned Women for American (CWA) representatives that organizational identity likely plays a role in explaining framing strategies. According to a CWA representative, its members viewed abortion as a moral absolute that did not change over time and the group then consistently framed the issue as the
131 McCammon (2012:48) defines organizational identity as a “group’s core political values and assumptions.”
131
murder of unborn babies, despite changes in the political context and its opponents tactics (Rohlinger 2002). On the other hand, Rohlinger (2002) found that the National Organization for Women (NOW), a public policy group that supports abortion access, typically framed abortion in terms of protecting women’s rights which was in line its organizational identity. Similarly, Williams (2002) points out that members of the 1960s Civil Rights movement and 1980s New Right movements both used religious language to mobilize supporters and draw attention to particular issues, but the content of their frames was quite different. Civil Rights activists put forth a religious vision of an inclusive, nonracist America. Nearly 20 years later, the New Christian Right criticized the post-60s American culture for being morally corrupt and called for a return to “family values”; values that are understood as “God given and absolute” (Williams 2002:259).
The highlighted work indicates that when social movements and SMOs construct frames, they typically use language that reflects their core values and beliefs. Just as NOW used the language of rights to convey their support for abortion access which reflects its history of fighting for the expansion of women’s rights, CWA’s reliance on the language of biblical and moral values to discuss the abortion debate reflects its overarching goal to promote Christian ideology. Similarly, the different types of religious language used by the Civil Rights movement and New Christian Right reflected their distinct goals and plans to achieve them. While the Civil Rights movement’s use of religious language reflected its commitment to nonviolence and inclusion, the New Christian Right has used the “family values” frame to amplify its aims to reform gender, sex, and family structures.
My work builds this line of work by demonstrating that the “protect the lives of patients”
frame is more likely to be used in briefs with a high proportion of left social movement authors.
132
The significant and positive relationship between the proportion of left social movement authors and the odds of the “protect the lives of patients” frame being used as the primary “protect life”
frame is due to the broader ideological and organizational agendas of left-leaning SMOs that include a commitment to protecting patients’ access to reproductive healthcare. For example, the ACLU, a left-leaning civil rights organization, often highlighted patients’ rights to government protection when it submitted amicus briefs supporting both the feminists and opponents in the cases in my study132. As amici supporting the feminists in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network (1997), the ACLU emphasized that protesters’ actions significantly interfere with patient safety, and without the Colorado statute limiting protest or counseling within eight feet of a person entering a healthcare facility, the protesters “would continue to crowd, follow, and otherwise harass clinic patients.”
When the feminists’ solutions to patient safety appeared to conflict with the ACLU’s other important organizational goals and agendas, the ACLU used the “protect the lives of patients” frame to demonstrate its commitment to protecting patients’ access to reproductive healthcare while simultaneously rejecting the feminists’ remedies. For example, in an amicus brief supporting the protesters in Hill v. Colorado (2000), ACLU acknowledges the
governments’ interest in protecting patient health and safety but also argues that Colorado’s buffer-zone laws pose a significant threat to First Amendment protections. Similarly, when PETA, a left-leaning animal rights nonprofit organization that routinely engages in disruptive protests133, filed an amicus brief supporting the protesters in Scheidler v. NOW (2003), it
132 The ACLU filed amicus briefs supporting the feminists in Bray v. Alexandria (1993) and Schenck v.
Pro-Choice Network (1997), and they filed amicus briefs supporting the antiabortion protesters in Frisby v. Schultz (1988), NOW v. Scheidler (1993), Hill v. Colorado (2000), McCullen v. Coakley (2014).
133 For further discussion on PETA’s strategies and tactics see Fanghanel (2019) and Matusitz and Forrester (2013).
133
acknowledges that the actions of the antiabortion protesters threaten the safety of patients while also maintaining that the protesters’ actions do “not constitute a violation of RICO because neither FACE, trespassing, nor ‘acts or threats of violence’ are among the listed “predicate crimes” necessary to constitute a RICO violation.”
Overall, the findings of my regression analysis indicate that the central identity of left- leaning SMOs is organized around protecting patient access to reproductive healthcare. As such, the higher proportion of left social movement brief authors, the greater the odds that the “protect the lives of patients” frame will be the most commonly used “protect life” legal frame.