Abstract

In this paper we undertake an examination of the presence of similar “women-protective” discourses in policy debates occurring over two bills on reproductive-related topics considered during the 2013 California legislature session. The first bill, now signed into law, allows nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants to perform first-trimester aspiration abortions. The second bill, had it passed, would remove the prohibition on paying women for providing eggs to be used for research purposes. Using frame analysis we find evidence of similar protective arguments by opponents of both bills, although these advocates do not share ideological positions on abortion rights or women's autonomy. In the case of AB154, anti-abortion advocates use language and frames that call for protecting the health of women against the imputed interests of the “abortion industry.” In the case of AB926, feminists and pro-choice advocates evoke similar frameworks for the protection of women against the interests of the “medical research industry.” Both sides argue for the “protection of women,” from opposing positions on the rights and autonomy of women in relationship to reproductive freedom