As discussed in previous posts, frames are a helpful tool for assessing the motivations of actors in a particular scenario. Framing is a major topic of discussion in the literature of both social movements (such as the pro-life movement) and public policy.
In the social movements literature, frames are strategic, conscious, intentional, cognitive attempts at coalition-building. In the public policy literature, “intractable policy controversies” arise when policymakers differently define the reality of the situation based on their ‘incommensurable’ views and values. These different policy frames make policy actors unable to agree on the facts of the situation and enabled them to “argue past each other” (95). Policy positions then rest on frames, “underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation” (23).
Policy actors using different frames construct different policy problems which necessitate different policy solutions. For example, people using the fetal personhood frame view fetuses as people and often believe life begins at conception; for people using this frame, abortion would be tantamount to murder (policy problem) and thus should be made illegal (policy solution). Conversely, people using a gender and class equity frame tend to argue that abortion restrictions constrain women’s economic opportunities (policy problem) and thus the bans should be repealed (policy solution).
In my past work on the Trump administration’s 2019 rule change to the Title X federal family planning program, I used framing analysis to examine three sets of textual data related to the rule change: a Congressional hearing about the rule change, 12 documents from the White House press office about the rule change, and 100 public comments submitted to Regulations.gov about the proposed rule.
In this post, I will give an overview of the first Trump administration’s tepid adoption of the ‘pro-woman’ frame and explore how the far right has adapted this frame and is using it to turn young people against contraception and demonize trans people under the guise of ‘protecting women.’
The ‘Pro-Woman’ Frame
As discussed earlier, around the turn of the 21st century, as contraception and abortion were steadily gaining public support, the pro-life movement began shifting focus away from the fetus and towards the woman carrying it. Accused for decades of being against women’s rights, the pro-life movement began to reframe and rebrand themselves as ‘pro-woman.’ Arguing that abortions were dangerous, often coercive, and had long-lasting physical and emotional consequences (such as ‘post-abortion syndrome’), pro-life activists began lobbying for abortion restrictions in the name of ‘protecting women.’ A product of gender paternalism, this pro-woman frame offered “strategic opportunities for anti-abortion lawmakers to appear softer and more reasonable than the violent anti-abortion movement of the past” (208). Activists and legislators using this frame typically focus on educating women and protecting them from the harms of abortion resulting from negligent providers, women’s own ignorance, or the medical procedure itself. For example, activists and legislators using this frame often use the language of “offering” women “opportunities,” “education,” and “objective information” about their fetus, often in the form of ultrasounds. While some activists continued using the fetal personhood frame in conjunction with the pro-woman frame (for example, “love them both” campaigns), the pro-woman frame became the dominant frame of pro-life activists and lawmakers in the 2000s and 2010. In her analysis of 1,706 state-level abortion restrictions proposed in all 50 states from 2008-2017, Amanda Roberti found significant adoption of the pro-woman frame by antiabortion lawmakers: the pro-woman frame was used in 70% of state abortion restrictions while just 38% of the restrictions used the fetal personhood frame.
My Analysis
Some supporters of the 2019 Title X rule change preferred to use the pro-woman frame to express their support for the rule. However, the pro-woman frame was used less than expected by all groups in all three sets of documents.
Supporters of the rule change mentioned elements of the pro-woman frame in fewer than one in four public comments in support of the rule change. These comments most frequently referenced sex trafficking or ‘modern slavery,’ often in conjunction with the proposed rule’s mandatory rape, abuse, and incest training and reporting. One commenter wrote: “I also support the proposed rule requirement that Title X clinics abide by state reporting laws for rape and abuse in order to put a stop to the exploiting of young women and girls, and sex trafficking of them, many of whom are brought to Title X clinics for contraception and abortion by their abusers.” Commenters also argued that many (if not all) women getting abortions were being pressured, forced, or deceived, often by traffickers, and needed to be ‘protected’ by abortion restrictions. Several commenters mentioned another common argument of the pro-woman frame, that women ‘deserved better,’ especially with regards to the healthcare provided at ‘abortion mills.’ Only one commenter mentioned a characteristic element of the frame, that women’s mental health often suffers as a result of abortion regret: “lets work to stop violence to the women who suffer increased risk of depression and suicide if they have an abortion.”
Generally preferring the fetal personhood frame, the White House did not echo many of the points mentioned above. The documents contained a few mentions of the rule change ‘improving women’s health,’ or ‘protecting women’s health,’ and general mentions of ‘caring for’ or ‘supporting women experiencing unexpected pregnancies,’ and ‘providing healing to women who have had abortions.’ However, these mentions did not line up with the frame’s typical characterization of women as needing protection from and education on the harmful practice of abortion. The documents occasionally mentioned ‘coercive abortion and forced sterilization,’ though only in reference to other countries (particularly China).
Supporters of the rule change in Congress mostly stuck with the party line of ensuring compliance with statutory prohibitions on the provision of abortion, breaking out of that construction a handful of times to use the pro-woman frame, though not as often as expected. There was again some discussion of mandatory prenatal care referrals to ‘help’ women and mandatory rape, abuse, and incest training and reporting to ‘save’ women and children, but these were typically in response to opponents of the rule change using a gender and class equity frame and discussing the potential negative effects the rule may have for women. This was indicative of ‘retaliation,’ as supportive lawmakers often employed the pro-woman frame when ‘accused’ of being against women’s health by opponents in a tit-for-tat game (consistent with Mucciaroni et al.).
‘Protecting Women,’ Deflecting Blame
While the ‘pro-woman’ frame appears to be losing ground to the resurging fetal personhood frame in discussions on abortion, I argue that a modified version of the ‘pro-woman’ frame is gaining traction in other areas. President Trump, his administration, his supporters, and the far right more broadly have increasingly adopted a vocabulary of ‘protecting women.’ These groups are using this frame to accomplish two alarming goals: discouraging contraceptive use among young women and demonizing and scapegoating transgender people.
Discouraging Contraceptive Use
Many young people have difficulty accessing the information they need for informed contraceptive decision-making and lack contraceptive self-efficacy. While more than three-quarters of young people want information on contraception from their health care providers, only one-third actually received this information from their providers in the last year. Perhaps as a result of this dearth of contraceptive information, only 68% of young people reported that they were using their preferred method of contraception. In the midst of this information vacuum, young people may turn to online sources of contraceptive information that feel more personal, such as online influencers.
This fractured information environment leaves young people susceptible to misinformation and disinformation on contraception. Young people are particularly concerned about the potential side effects of contraception, with over half worried that these side effects were dangerous and over one-third worried that birth control use could impact their future fertility, a common misinformation claim about prescribed birth control. This misinformation and disinformation may have undue influence on young people’s contraceptive decision-making, negatively impacting their reproductive autonomy.
Misinformation and disinformation on prescribed birth control, including shorter-acting methods such as hormonal contraceptive pills, patches, and rings and long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) such as contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs), has been spreading rapidly, especially on social media networks. Dubious claims are often featured in short-form video content on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram.
Many of these creators, especially those who are amplifying what they believe to be concerning claims about the side effects of contraception, are not ill-intentioned. However, “many videos with honest intent fail to provide context and imply individual birth control experiences are universal.” Other creators may be incentivized by social media algorithms that prioritize engagement, positive or negative; TikTok’s algorithm was recently found to privilege extreme misogynistic content. Given many social media platforms’ algorithmic preference for negative content, some creators may be focusing on negative experiences with contraception to increase their engagement, thereby increasing their earnings. In a recent analysis, twice as many TikTok videos about LARCs (such as IUDs) were negative in tone than positive and nearly a third mentioned distrust of medical professionals. Nearly half of TikTok creators and three-quarters of YouTube influencers who made videos about birth control recommended discontinuation of contraception.
This wave of contraceptive misinformation and disinformation comes at a critical time for reproductive rights in the United States. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization which overturned Roe v. Wade’s constitutional protections for abortion, conservative and right-leaning lawmakers are pushing further restrictions on contraception and abortion access across the country. As discussed in an earlier post, far-right conservatives are increasingly making the argument that “broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional gender roles and weakened the family.” Some scholars argue that right-wing influencers creating supposed “wellness content” exploiting valid medical mistrust to discredit birth control in an attempt to return to these traditional gender roles is “a form of contraceptive coercion.”
These claims have broad reach and real consequences, with physicians anecdotally reporting an increasing number of patients coming in with concerns about birth control “fueled by influencers and conservative commentators.” Those who expressed concern that prescribed birth control may impact their future fertility were less likely to use it, especially hormonal contraception. This particular belief was notably prevalent among adolescents and young adults. These claims are not only harmful on the individual level, they may also help push policy and legislative changes that limit access to hormonal birth control, particularly IUDs and emergency contraceptives which these influencers have characterized as abortifacients. In the name of ‘protecting’ women and girls, the far right is achieving its longtime goal of rolling back reproductive rights, putting the health of the very women and girls they purport to protect in danger as a result.
Demonizing Transgender People
Right-wing politicians and commentators are also increasingly stoking a moral panic about “extreme gender ideology” and “gender radicalism.” Upon his second inauguration, President Trump quickly signed an executive order called “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” and WhiteHouse.gov now has an official page on the social cause of ‘Protecting Women.’ The page has two entries, both about preventing trans girls and women from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Like the bathroom bans popularized during the first Trump administration, policing trans girls and women in sports requires the establishment of a strict, discrete definition of ‘female.’ The establishment of this definition hurts all women and girls, cisgender, transgender, or intersex, by creating a standard against which all women and girls are examined to determine whether or not they are ‘female enough.’ For example, the National Women’s Law Center warns that “enforcing anti-trans sports bans often relies upon dangerous practices of “sex testing,” which create new risks of sex harassment against student athletes. They range from collecting sensitive medical documents to needless, traumatizing genital examinations. Athletics bans especially target Black and brown women (who face increased body policing and gender scrutiny based on racialized stereotypes of femininity) and intersex women and girls.” Perhaps as a result, recent research shows that more girls are playing school sports in states with inclusive policies that support and include trans girls. Conversely, in states with restrictive policies targeting trans and nonbinary students, fewer girls total are playing school sports.
Right-wing lawmakers are similarly trying to ban gender affirming care for transgender young people in the name of ‘protecting the children’ from ‘extremist gender ideology.’ Meanwhile, gender affirming care for cisgender children and adults is a booming business. Clinics providing testosterone-replacement therapy (TRT) are popping up all over the country, mainly serving cisgender men under 35 years old, giving them access to hormone replacement therapies that allow them to feel more like ‘men.’ Despite the rapidly growing moral panic around gender-affirming care (especially surgeries) for minors, recent research illustrates that most gender-affirming surgeries for minors are performed on cisgender teens. Of 151 breast reductions performed on minors in 2019, 146 (96%) were performed on cisgender males. Like reproductive healthcare, gender-affirming healthcare is used by people of all genders. Like reproductive healthcare, gender-affirming healthcare is being targeted in the name of ‘protecting’ women, girls, and children.
Looking Forward
The right to autonomy over one’s own body inextricably links people capable of pregnancy and transgender people. Abortion and ‘gender radicalism’ or gender affirming care are mentioned one after the other continuously throughout Project 2025, illustrating that the far right also sees the clear linkage between these two topics. While the ‘pro-woman’ frame may have fallen out of favor with the pro-life movement, the far right’s adaptation of it lives on in attempts to curtail bodily autonomy in the name of ‘protecting women.’