Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA; Collaborative for Reproductive Equity, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Department of Social Inquiry, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI, USA; Collaborative for Reproductive Equity, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Contraception. 2022 May;109:43-48. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.11.005. Epub 2021 Dec 29.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在过去的二十年中，州级堕胎限制的数量大幅增加。本研究考察了在首次辩论这些法律的立法委员会听证会上提供专家证词的范围。
我们收集了 1995 年至 2019 年威斯康星州立法委员会听证会上 34 项堕胎法案的 265 名专家证词。我们对证词进行了编码，以确定证人的意识形态倾向和专业知识来源。我们对证人的参与情况进行了描述性分析。
持反堕胎权利观点的专家比持支持堕胎权利观点的专家更频繁地作证（每位专家 2.1 次与 1.4 次）。具有激进主义背景的专家比医学专家更频繁地作证（每位专家 2.5 次与 1.3 次）。反堕胎激进主义专家代表了证词中最大的比例（32%），但代表了证人中最小的比例（16%）。支持堕胎权利的医学专家给出的证词最少（24%），而他们在证人中的比例（31%）最低。近年来，支持堕胎权利的激进主义专家给出的证词数量保持稳定。近年来，所有其他类型专家的证词数量都更多。
最常作证的专家往往支持反堕胎观点，并具有激进主义背景，而不是医疗保健背景。这些重复的证人可能有更多的机会与立法者建立关系，从而影响政策。近年来，反堕胎权利激进主义专家在立法听证会上的作用过大，这应该引起支持基于证据的生殖健康政策的倡导者的关注。医疗专家可能会因立法程序中的后勤或其他结构性障碍而不愿作证。
计划生育领域应更多地研究专家在堕胎政策制定中的作用。未来的研究应该考察其他州的证人，并确定支持堕胎的医学专家在作证时可能面临的障碍，因为这些专家是制定基于证据的堕胎政策的关键。
