Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:49:20.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Catholic Politicians and the Politics of Abortion Position Taking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2017

Kathleen Marchetti  and
David O'Connell
Kathleen Marchetti*
Affiliation:
Dickinson College
David O'Connell*
Affiliation:
Dickinson College
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Kathleen Marchetti, Department of Political Science, Dickinson College, P. O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013. E-mail: [email protected]; or to: David O'Connell, Department of Political Science, Dickinson College, P. O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013. E-mail: [email protected].
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Kathleen Marchetti, Department of Political Science, Dickinson College, P. O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013. E-mail: [email protected]; or to: David O'Connell, Department of Political Science, Dickinson College, P. O. Box 1773, Carlisle, PA 17013. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four decades after the Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion persists as a point of contention for elected officials. The Catholic Church has taken a leading role in the pro-life movement, putting many Catholic representatives in a difficult position as they can be cross-pressured by their party, their constituents, and their own beliefs. Given these pressures, how do Catholic legislators explain their positions on abortion? We address this question via an analysis of public statements about abortion made by Catholic representatives and senators in the 108th Congress. We examine which members comment on abortion and use automated text analysis to measure legislators' certainty and use of moral and religious terms when discussing abortion. Multivariate analysis shows that gender, ethnicity, and an interaction between a member's position on abortion and the number of Catholics in their constituency shape how Catholic legislators discuss abortion.

Type
Article
Information
Politics and Religion , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 281 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Co-authorship of the manuscript is equal and authors are listed alphabetically. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable suggestions and feedback provided by the editor and three anonymous reviewers at Politics and Religion. In addition, the authors thank Mary Martin for her assistance with data collection for this article.

References

REFERENCES

Adams, Greg D. 1997. “Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution.” American Journal of Political Science 41:718–737.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, Scott H., and Hall, Thad E.. 2011. Abortion Politics in Congress: Strategic Incrementalism and Policy Change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael, and Cohen, Richard E.. 2001. The Almanac of American Politics, 2002. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael, and Cohen, Richard E.. 2003. The Almanac of American Politics, 2004. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.Google Scholar
Barone, Michael, and Cohen, Richard E.. 2005. The Almanac of American Politics, 2006. Washington, DC: National Journal Group.Google Scholar
Barrett, Edith J., and Cook, Fay Lomax. 1991. “Congressional Attitudes and Voting Behavior: An Examination of Support for Social Welfare.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:375–392.Google Scholar
Blackstone, Bethany, and Oldmixon, Elizabeth A.. 2015. “Discourse and Dissonance: Religious Agendas in the 104th Congress.” Research and Politics 3:1–8.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2007. Personal Roots of Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clifford, Scott. 2016. “Individual Differences in Group Loyalty Predict Partisan Strength.” www.link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9367-3 (Accessed on January 21, 2017).Google Scholar
Clifford, Scott, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2013. “How Words Do the Work of Politics: Moral Foundations Theory and the Debate Over Stem Cell Research.” Journal of Politics 75:659–671.Google Scholar
Daynes, Byron W., and Tatalovich, Raymond. 1984. “Religious Influence and Congressional Voting on Abortion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23:197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fastnow Chris, J., Grant, Tobin, and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 1999. “Holy Roll Calls: Religious Tradition and Voting Behavior in the U.S. House.” Social Science Quarterly 80:687–701.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1982. The United States Senate: A Bicameral Perspective. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2006. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Gallup. 2009a. “State of the States: Importance of Religion.” www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx (Accessed on July 27, 2017).Google Scholar
Gallup. 2009b. “Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells.” www.gallup.com/poll/117154/catholics-similar-mainstream-abortion-stem-cells.aspx (Accessed on September 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Gray, Mark M., Perl, Paul M., and Bendyna, Mary E.. 2006. “Camelot Only Comes But Once? John F. Kerry and the Catholic Vote.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 36:203–222.Google Scholar
Green, John C., and Guth, James L.. 1991. “Religion, Representatives, and Roll Calls.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:571–584.Google Scholar
Grose, Christian. 2005. “Disentangling Constituency and Legislator Effects in Legislative Representation: Black Legislators or Black Districts?” Social Science Quarterly 86:427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, James L., and Kellstedt, Lyman A.. 2001. “Religion and Congress.” In In God We Trust? Religion and American Political Life, ed. Smidt, Corwin E. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2007. “Representation and Backlash: The Positive and Negative Influence of Descriptive Representation.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32:107–133.Google Scholar
Hill, Kim Quaile, and Hurley, Patricia A.. 2002. “Symbolic Speeches in the U.S. Senate and Their Representational Implications.” Journal of Politics 64:219–231.Google Scholar
Hofstetter, C. Richard, Ayers, John W., and Perry, Robert. 2008. “The Bishops and Their Flock: John Kerry and the Case of Catholic Voters in 2004.” Politics and Religion 1:436–455.Google Scholar
Hutchings, Vincent L., McClerking, Harwood K., and Charles, Guy-Uriel. 2004. “Congressional Representation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of Stability.” Journal of Politics 66:450–468.Google Scholar
Jelen, Ted G., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2003. “Causes and Consequences of Public Attitudes toward Abortion: A Review and Research Agenda.” Political Research Quarterly 56:489–500.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.Google Scholar
Maltzman, Forrest, and Sigelman, Lee. 1996. “The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 58:819–830.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contigent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61:628–657.Google Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. 2007. “Voting for Catholic Candidates: The Evolution of a Stereotype.” Social Science Quarterly 88:953–969.Google Scholar
McTague, John, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2015. “Thou Shalt Not Flip Flop: Senators’ Religious Affiliations and Issue Position Consistency.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40:417–440.Google Scholar
Mockabee, Stephen T. 2007. “The Political Behavior of American Catholics.” In From Pews to Polling Places: Faith and Politics in the American Religious Mosaic, ed. Wilson, J. Matthew. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, Jonathan. 2001. “Reexamining the Politics of Talk: Partisan Rhetoric in the 104th House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26:101–121.Google Scholar
NARAL Pro-Choice America. 2003. 2003 Congressional Record on Choice. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
NARAL Pro-Choice America. 2004. 2004 Congressional Record on Choice. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
New, Michael J. 2011. “Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 11:28–47.Google Scholar
Oldmixon, Elizabeth A. 2005. Uncompromising Positions: God, Sex, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Oldmixon, Elizabeth A., and Hudson, William. 2008. “Catholic Republicans and Conflicting Impulses in the 109th Congress.” Politics and Religion 1:113–136.Google Scholar
Osborn, Tracy, and Mendez, Jeanette Morehouse. 2010. “Speaking as Women: Women and Floor Speeches in the Senate.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 31:1–21.Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2013. “Widening Regional Divide over Abortion Laws.” www.people-press.org/2013/07/29/widening-regional-divide-over-abortion-laws (Accessed on June 29, 2017).Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2015a. “Faith on the Hill.” www.pewforum.org/2015/01/05/faith-on-the-hill (Accessed on August 24, 2016).Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2015b. “Religious Landscape Study.” www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study (Accessed on January 5, 2017).Google Scholar
Prendergast, William B. 1999. The Catholic Voter in American Politics: The Passing of a Democratic Monolith. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., and Campbell, David E.. 2010. American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17:509–537.Google Scholar
Richardson, James T., and Fox, Sandie Wightman. 1972. “Religious Affiliation as a Predictor of Voting Behavior in Abortion Reform Legislation.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11:347–359.Google Scholar
Sammon, Margaret Ross. 2008. “The Politics of the U.S. Catholic Bishops.” In Catholics and Politics: The Dynamic Tension Between Faith and Power, eds., Heyer, Kristin E., Rozell, Mark J., and Genovese, Michael A.. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Lauren Edwards, Olson, Laura R., and Fine, Jeffrey A.. 2010. “Substantive Religious Representation in the US Senate: Voting Alignment with the Family Research Council.” Political Research Quarterly 63:68–82.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills Than Their Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23:435–448.Google Scholar
Tatalovich, Raymond, and Schier, David. 1993. “The Persistence of Ideological Cleavage in Voting on Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973–1988.” American Politics Quarterly 21:125–139.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Yla R., and Pennebaker, James W.. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29:24–54.Google Scholar
University of Norte Dame. 1984. “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective.” www.archives.nd.edu/research/texts/cuomo.htm (Accessed on December 29, 2016).Google Scholar
Wakin, Daniel J. 2004. “A Divisive Issue for Catholics: Bishops, Politicians and Communion.” New York Times, May 31.Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., and Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 2011. Religion and Politics in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Witt, Stephanie L., and Moncrief, Gary. 1993. “Religion and Roll Call Voting in Idaho: The 1990 Abortion Controversy.” American Politics Quarterly 21:140–149.Google Scholar
Young, Neil J. 2016. We Gather Together: The Religious Right and the Problem of Interfaith Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Marchetti and O'Connell supplementary material

Marchetti and O'Connell supplementary material 1

Download Marchetti and O'Connell supplementary material(File)
File 31.4 KB