Abortion Decisions as Humanizing Acts — Sage Perspectives Blog

by Rachel L. Dyer, Olivia R. Checkalski, And Dr. Sarah J. Gervais

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, understanding how people who have abortions are perceived is more important than ever before. For the last 15 years, researchers have focused on abortion stigma—the belief that abortions are wrong, and that those who have them are bad. One reason for this stigma is that abortions violate expectations about “good” women—that they should be caregivers and mothers, and the violation is thought to provide an excuse for poor treatment (Kumar et al., 2009).

Recent rhetoric, however, carries a seemingly more benevolent and caring tone. Often described as “precious objects” (e.g., Hooberman & Ozoguz, 2022; Osborne & Davies, 2012), pregnant people are characterized as child-like and in need of protection against the supposed harms of abortion. Abortion rhetoric appears to be shifting away from overt hostility and toward more covert animosity. Drawing from ambivalent sexism theory, and a new reproductive objectification framework, we expand beyond abortion stigma to better account for ostensibly benevolent, though nonetheless sexist and objectifying, attitudes toward people who have had abortions (Dyer et al., 2023; Glick & Fiske, 1996). On the surface, this rhetoric may seem caring, but it dehumanizes pregnant people by justifying laws, policies, and other barriers that undermine pregnant people’s ability to exercise their full humanity—waiting periods, parental notification or consent, state-mandated counseling, and others.

These laws seem indicative of benevolent sexism—a seemingly positive, caring, and protective form of sexism that views women as being unable to make decisions for themselves—compared to abortion stigma which functions like hostile sexism—a negative and overtly hateful form of sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996; 2001). However, scholars suggest that benevolent and hostile sexism represent two sides to the same sexist coin. A pregnant person may be seen as helpless and naïve, deserving of care and protection from themselves and from the influence of pro-abortion messaging when seeking an abortion, but bad and selfish once they’ve had an abortion.

In our analysis, we also observed that abortion rhetoric frames pregnant people as objects—precious incubators of a developing fetus. We propose that people who are seeking or have had abortions may experience sexual objectification; they may be reduced from a full-fledged human being to their reproductive functioning (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Reproductive objectification describes treating someone as though their primary use and value is their ability to make and have a baby (Dyer et al., 2023).

Drawing from Langton (2009) and Nussbaum’s (1995) work on the specific ways people are treated as objects, rather than human beings, we consider how anti-abortion rhetoric serves to justify objectifying treatment of pregnant people (e.g., denying them autonomy and overlooking their thoughts, feelings, and health). For example, crisis pregnancy centers claim to offer “counseling” outside of clinics that provide abortions, but in actuality work to convince people not to have an abortion using coercive tactics. On the surface, these tactics may be masked under care and concern, but they treat those seeking abortions as naïve and unable to make their own decisions. They also assume pregnant people have not fully considered their decision to have an abortion or are not capable of making such a decision on their own. In doing so, these centers fail to recognize the subjectivity and autonomy of these pregnant people. Put simply, they treat pregnant people as if they cannot, or should not, make decisions for themselves and follow through on those decisions.

Using this new reproductive objectification framework, we state that the autonomous, informed decision to have an abortion is humanizing—an action against objectification. Indeed, we argue that the ability to make any informed autonomous decision about a pregnancy—whatever that decision—is a humanizing act.

read the article

Article Details
Abortion Decisions as Humanizing Acts: The Application of Ambivalent Sexism and Objectification to Women-Centered Anti-Abortion Rhetoric
Rachel L. Dyer, Olivia R. Checkalski, Sarah J. Gervais
First Published May 17, 2023 Research Article
DOI: 10.1177/03616843231173673
Psychology of Women Quarterly

About the Authors

Featured

Rachel L. Dyer, M.S. (she/her) is a scholar-clinician working primarily at the intersection of abortion and mental health. A Ph.D. candidate in Counseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Health Service Psychology Intern at the University of Utah Counseling Center, Rachel’s work focuses on how dominant sociocultural narratives impact pregnancy and family-building desires, decisions, and experiences, as well as how mental health and other care providers can better support clients/patients around these experiences. Rachel is an incoming Assistant Professor at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin.

Featured

Olivia R. Checkalski, M.A. (she/her) is a graduate student in the Social Psychology Ph.D. program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. In May 2022, she received her M.A. from UNL, where her thesis explored women's agentic and pressured motivations for sending nudes. Her current research interests include questions about objectification in the context of reproductive rights, in couples and among LGBTQ+ people. She also has a continued interest in self-objectification and self-sexualization, especially as a means of adding nuance to cultural narratives about sexual empowerment.

Featured

Dr. Sarah J. Gervais (she/her/hers) has a dual PhD in Psychology and Women's Studies from The Pennsylvania State University and currently serves as the Associate Chair in the Department of Psychology at UNL. Her research focuses on sexual objectification, dehumanization, and sexual violence and lies at the intersections of gender, social psychology, the law, and public health. Her work is funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. Dr. Gervais also directs the Objectification of Women Lab (OWLab) and trains both PhD graduate students and undergraduates in social psychology. She is past Associate Editor of Psychology of Women Quarterly, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and British Journal of Social Psychology and has been the recipient of the Georgia Babladelis Best Paper Award from the Society for the Psychology of Women as well as the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

Additional Articles

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Hooberman, L., & Ozoguz, S. (2022). Abortion, mental health and epistemologies of psychological knowledge and ignorance. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(9), Article e12703. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12703

Langton, R. (2009). Autonomy-denial in objectification. In R. Langton (Ed.), Sexual solipsism: Philosophical essays on pornography and objectification (pp. 223–240). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199247066.003.0011

Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963. 1995.tb00032.x

Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists’ opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x