Policymaking describes the ways in which public policies are created and how they evolve over time. Scholars have sought theoretical approaches to garner insights from the process, predict the circumstances under which strategies are most effective or to explain policy successes or failures. Rochford notes that the policy stages model that was popular in the 1970s and 1980s is most useful for understanding policy processes that are contained within a single system, or to gain a high-level view of events leading to policy change. Critiques of the policy stages model led to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which allows for examination of context and external factors that influence the process. Using the abortion debate as an example, this essay will discuss the role of policy-oriented learning, a key component of ACF that may not be factored into the process using the stages model. As noted in the lead précis, each of these frameworks has value and may be relevant in different contexts.
Health and Safety Arguments in the Abortion Debate
The debate surrounding abortion rights in the U.S. has been carried out in various policy spheres for more than 40 years. (Rovner, 2013) For brevity, this essay will not present the history in great detail. It will focus on arguments related to women’s health and safety that have been used by advocates on either side of the debate. Policy-oriented learning recognizes that learning is a political process where coalitions may interpret facts and evidence in ways that are aligned with their respective core beliefs. Policy-oriented learning can explain shifts over time as a strategy to justify core beliefs in a changing policy context. (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993)
Beginning in the 1950’s, efforts to moderate state laws constraining abortion were led by physicians who argued that restrictions drove women to use unlicensed clinics. (Rovner, 2013) Physicians feared legal repercussions from acting “in the interest of their patients,” such as providing abortion or treating women who needed medical care following an unsafe procedure. Pro-choice arguments were grounded in medical expertise and framed in terms of concern for women’s safety and health.
Policy-oriented learning predicts that advocacy coalitions adapt strategies that have proven most effective to advance their positions. The 2013 debate surrounding anti-abortion legislation in Texas shows how messages about women’s health and safety have been adjusted by pro-life advocates to advance strict anti-abortion legislation. A key provision of the Texas law would require clinics that perform abortion to have hospital operating room-style facilities, even if non-surgical procedures were being done. (Fernandez and Eckholm, 2013) The stated purpose of the provision was to ensure that clinics are equipped to treat women safely. In practice, as many as half of clinics that once offered abortion services closed, because they could not afford the upgrades required to meet the new requirements. According to the ACF model, pro-life advocates learned from previous debates and incorporated ideas about women’s health and safety to achieve their goal.
In response to the question Rochford posed in the lead précis, ACF has limitations such as lack of clarity about coalition structure. ACF theorists suggest that coalitions are most likely formed by organizations with similar core beliefs and when coordination is easy. But that does not explain the common advocacy tactic of aligning “strange bedfellows.” Strange bedfellows are pairs of individuals or coalitions whose core beliefs vary, but who collaborate towards advancing change. (Leinwand, 2015) For example, there is recent evidence of pro-life advocates working to engage feminists (who have traditionally been pro-choice) by reframing pro-life arguments as an extension of women’s rights. (Leinwand, 2015) Engaging a new audience is not necessarily easy, and may lead to very limited engagement.
Second, ACF suggests that there is an inverse relationship between level of conflict and cross-coalition learning. In high conflict situations, there is little cross-coalition learning as actors “defend their positions and reject information that undermines their belief systems.” But this does not explain re-interpretation of the same evidence to support both sides of an argument. As previously described, women’s health and safety has been successfully used by advocates on both sides of the debate, suggesting that one side learned from the other.
Policymaking does not describe a single process; it involves actions that take place in varied contexts. Multiple frameworks for analysis serve as tools that allow for studying these different contexts. They may also serve different analytical purposes, such as offering high-level understanding of the path to change or a more intricate view of factors and interactions that contribute to change. In short, the nature of the policy question indicates which tool is most useful.
Works Cited
Julie Rovner, “‘Roe v. Wade’ Turns 40, But Abortion Debate is Even Older” NPR (January 22, 2013) Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/22/169637288/roe-v-wade-turns-40-but-abortion-debate-is-even-older
Manny Fernandez and Erik Eckholm, “Texas House Restricts Abortion in a Move that Could Force Clinics to Shut,” The New York Times (June 24, 2013) Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/texas-house-restricts-abortions-in-a-move-that-could-force-clinics-to-shut.html?_r=0
Tali Leinwand, “Strange Bedfellows: The De-Stigmatization of Anti-Abortion Reform” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Volume 30, Number 2 (2015) Retrieved from http://cjgl.cdrs.columbia.edu/article/strange-bedfellows/
Health and Safety Arguments in the Abortion Debate
The debate surrounding abortion rights in the U.S. has been carried out in various policy spheres for more than 40 years. (Rovner, 2013) For brevity, this essay will not present the history in great detail. It will focus on arguments related to women’s health and safety that have been used by advocates on either side of the debate. Policy-oriented learning recognizes that learning is a political process where coalitions may interpret facts and evidence in ways that are aligned with their respective core beliefs. Policy-oriented learning can explain shifts over time as a strategy to justify core beliefs in a changing policy context. (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993)
Beginning in the 1950’s, efforts to moderate state laws constraining abortion were led by physicians who argued that restrictions drove women to use unlicensed clinics. (Rovner, 2013) Physicians feared legal repercussions from acting “in the interest of their patients,” such as providing abortion or treating women who needed medical care following an unsafe procedure. Pro-choice arguments were grounded in medical expertise and framed in terms of concern for women’s safety and health.
Policy-oriented learning predicts that advocacy coalitions adapt strategies that have proven most effective to advance their positions. The 2013 debate surrounding anti-abortion legislation in Texas shows how messages about women’s health and safety have been adjusted by pro-life advocates to advance strict anti-abortion legislation. A key provision of the Texas law would require clinics that perform abortion to have hospital operating room-style facilities, even if non-surgical procedures were being done. (Fernandez and Eckholm, 2013) The stated purpose of the provision was to ensure that clinics are equipped to treat women safely. In practice, as many as half of clinics that once offered abortion services closed, because they could not afford the upgrades required to meet the new requirements. According to the ACF model, pro-life advocates learned from previous debates and incorporated ideas about women’s health and safety to achieve their goal.
In response to the question Rochford posed in the lead précis, ACF has limitations such as lack of clarity about coalition structure. ACF theorists suggest that coalitions are most likely formed by organizations with similar core beliefs and when coordination is easy. But that does not explain the common advocacy tactic of aligning “strange bedfellows.” Strange bedfellows are pairs of individuals or coalitions whose core beliefs vary, but who collaborate towards advancing change. (Leinwand, 2015) For example, there is recent evidence of pro-life advocates working to engage feminists (who have traditionally been pro-choice) by reframing pro-life arguments as an extension of women’s rights. (Leinwand, 2015) Engaging a new audience is not necessarily easy, and may lead to very limited engagement.
Second, ACF suggests that there is an inverse relationship between level of conflict and cross-coalition learning. In high conflict situations, there is little cross-coalition learning as actors “defend their positions and reject information that undermines their belief systems.” But this does not explain re-interpretation of the same evidence to support both sides of an argument. As previously described, women’s health and safety has been successfully used by advocates on both sides of the debate, suggesting that one side learned from the other.
Policymaking does not describe a single process; it involves actions that take place in varied contexts. Multiple frameworks for analysis serve as tools that allow for studying these different contexts. They may also serve different analytical purposes, such as offering high-level understanding of the path to change or a more intricate view of factors and interactions that contribute to change. In short, the nature of the policy question indicates which tool is most useful.
Works Cited
Julie Rovner, “‘Roe v. Wade’ Turns 40, But Abortion Debate is Even Older” NPR (January 22, 2013) Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/22/169637288/roe-v-wade-turns-40-but-abortion-debate-is-even-older
Manny Fernandez and Erik Eckholm, “Texas House Restricts Abortion in a Move that Could Force Clinics to Shut,” The New York Times (June 24, 2013) Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/us/texas-house-restricts-abortions-in-a-move-that-could-force-clinics-to-shut.html?_r=0
Tali Leinwand, “Strange Bedfellows: The De-Stigmatization of Anti-Abortion Reform” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, Volume 30, Number 2 (2015) Retrieved from http://cjgl.cdrs.columbia.edu/article/strange-bedfellows/