Abstract
Objective
State-level abortion restrictions grew considerably in number over the last two decades.
This study examines the scope of expert testimony given in legislative committee hearings
at which these laws are first debated.
Study Design
We gathered 265 testimonies given by experts at Wisconsin legislative committee hearings
on 34 abortion bills from 1995 to 2019. We coded testimonies to identify testifiers’
ideological leaning and source of expertise. We conducted descriptive analyses of
testifiers’ participation.
Results
Experts with anti-abortion rights views testified more often than experts with pro-abortion
rights views (2.1 vs 1.4 testimonies per expert). Experts with an activism background
testified more often than experts in medicine (2.5 vs 1.3 testimonies per expert).
Anti-abortion activist experts represented the largest proportion of testimonies (32%)
but the smallest proportion of testifiers (16%). Pro-abortion rights medical experts
gave the fewest testimonies (24%) relative to their proportion of testifiers (31%).
The number of testimonies given by pro-abortion rights activist experts remained stable
over the study period. Testimonies given by all other kinds of experts were more numerous
in recent years.
Conclusions
The experts who testify most frequently tend to espouse anti-abortion views and have
backgrounds in activism rather than healthcare. These repeat testifiers may have more
opportunities to build relationships with legislators and thus influence policy. Anti-abortion
rights activist experts’ outsized role in legislative hearings, especially in recent
years, should concern advocates of evidence-based reproductive health policy. Medical
experts may be deterred from giving testimony by logistical or other structural barriers
in the legislative process.
Implications
The family planning field should conduct more research on the role of experts in abortion
policymaking. Future studies should examine testifiers in other states and identify
barriers pro-abortion medical experts may face to testifying, as these experts are
key for creating evidence-based abortion policy.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Last Five Years Account for More Than One-quarter of All Abortion Restrictions Enacted Since Roe.Guttmacher Institute, New York2016
- State Policy Trends at Midyear 2021: Already the Worst Legislative Year Ever for U.S. Abortion Rights.Guttmacher Institute, New York2021
- Legislatures and Citizens: Public Participation and Confidence in the Legislature.Natl Conf State Legis. 1997;
- “My good friends on the other side of the aisle aren't bothered by those facts”: U.S. State legislators’ use of evidence in making policy on abortion.Contraception. 2020; 101: 249-255https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2019.11.009
- A narrative analysis of anti-abortion testimony and legislative debate related to Georgia's fetal “heartbeat” abortion ban.Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2020; 281686201https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2019.1686201
- “Hearing from all sides” How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States.Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015; 4: 91-98https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2015.13
- Knowledge Exchange Processes in Organizations and Policy Arenas: A Narrative Systematic Review of the Literature.Milbank Q. 2010; 88: 444-483https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00608.x
- Participation and argument in legislative debate on statewide smoking restrictions.Health Res Policy Syst. 2007; 5: 12https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-5-12
- State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy.Health Educ Res. 2015; (cyv044)https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyv044
- Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal.Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001; 10: 224-228https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
Pew Research Center. Religious Landscape Study. Washington, D.C.: 2014.
Institute for Women's Policy Research. The Status of Women in the States. Institute for Women's Policy Research; 2020.
NARAL Pro-Choice America. Wisconsin. NARAL Pro-Choice America; 2021.
- State Abortion Policy Landscape: From Hostile to Supportive.Guttmacher Inst. 2020; (Available at:) (accessed May 17, 2021)
Testify at a hearing. 2020, Wis State Legis n.d. Available at: https://legis.wisconsin.gov/about/testify (accessed October 13, 2021).
Wisconsin Legislative Council. A Citizen's Guide to Participation in the Wisconsin State Legislature 2017.
- House Committee Hearings: Arranging Witnesses.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service;. 2015;
- Gendered Expertise.Gend Soc. 2015; 29: 841-862https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602104
- For a Sociology of Expertise: The Social Origins of the Autism Epidemic.Am J Sociol. 2013; 118: 863-907https://doi.org/10.1086/668448
- Qualitative Methods in Public Health: A Field Guide for Applied Research.John Wiley & Sons, 2016
Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2019.
- “Developing Good Taste in Evidence”: Facilitators of and Hindrances to Evidence-Informed Health Policymaking in State Government.Milbank Q. 2008; 86: 177-208https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 28, 2021
Accepted:
November 30,
2021
Received in revised form:
October 22,
2021
Received:
August 31,
2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
