Presentation Title

A Split Nation: The Hyde Amendment

Faculty Mentor

Sean Kelly

Start Date

18-11-2017 12:30 PM

End Date

18-11-2017 1:30 PM

Location

BSC-Ursa Minor 29

Session

Poster 2

Type of Presentation

Poster

Subject Area

behavioral_social_sciences

Abstract

SCCUR Abstract

By: David Crawford and Felix Julian Pambuena

A Split Nation: The Hyde Amendment

Roe v. Wade (1973) was an extremely polarizing Supreme Court case that divided the United States based on people’s moral beliefs settings on abortion: pro-choice or pro-life. Prior to Roe, abortion rights were guided by state statutes. The ruling, which held that laws criminalizing abortion except when medically necessary are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, “federalized” abortion policy, upsetting the policy equilibrium provided by state laws.

Members of Congress were inundated with constituent letters containing their thoughts and feelings on the decision and subsequent congressional decision. This project focuses on the different congressional behaviors the amendment produced. A comparative research study was conducted between the constituent letters sent to California Congressman Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson and Ohio Congressman Lud Ashley. We compare the members’ responses to pro-choice and pro-life letters between 1973-1977. Using text analysis software, we demonstrate that the two members adopted contrasting styles. Johnson took a more guarded approach while Lud Ashley was more forthcoming with his liberal views. We argue that these responses reflect the differences in the two districts, highlighting the differences in representation produced by the American system of representation based on geography.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 18th, 12:30 PM Nov 18th, 1:30 PM

A Split Nation: The Hyde Amendment

BSC-Ursa Minor 29

SCCUR Abstract

By: David Crawford and Felix Julian Pambuena

A Split Nation: The Hyde Amendment

Roe v. Wade (1973) was an extremely polarizing Supreme Court case that divided the United States based on people’s moral beliefs settings on abortion: pro-choice or pro-life. Prior to Roe, abortion rights were guided by state statutes. The ruling, which held that laws criminalizing abortion except when medically necessary are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, “federalized” abortion policy, upsetting the policy equilibrium provided by state laws.

Members of Congress were inundated with constituent letters containing their thoughts and feelings on the decision and subsequent congressional decision. This project focuses on the different congressional behaviors the amendment produced. A comparative research study was conducted between the constituent letters sent to California Congressman Harold T. “Bizz” Johnson and Ohio Congressman Lud Ashley. We compare the members’ responses to pro-choice and pro-life letters between 1973-1977. Using text analysis software, we demonstrate that the two members adopted contrasting styles. Johnson took a more guarded approach while Lud Ashley was more forthcoming with his liberal views. We argue that these responses reflect the differences in the two districts, highlighting the differences in representation produced by the American system of representation based on geography.