By Ally, Megan and Jordyn
INTRODUCTION
When I stepped inside my car this morning, on December 1st, 2021 I heard NPR’s live national coverage of the Supreme Court case hearing Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (photo above). This case has the potential to repeal previously held abortion laws and dramatically relandscape access to abortion and reproductive healthcare as we currently know it in this country. I gripped my steering wheel, riveted, as the attorney for Jackson’s Women Health (the last standing abortion clinic in Missippi) volleyed questions from conservative Supreme Court Justices. The reason that this case, and the abortion controversy in general, is important is because it deals with constitutional rights. However, America is deeply, seemingly irreparably, divided on how these rights should manifest. The basic tension in this highly divisive and polarized topic boils down to a controversy between the indelible rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus, creating a stark divide among Americans.
On both sides of the issue in this charged debate, millions flock to Twitter to assert their ideology, express and espouse opinion, gain consensus, and garner support and resources. Twitter is often identified as playing a crucial role in democracy. However, while some consider Twitter to be an invaluable tool for social change, political discourse, and activism, others view Twitter as a toxic byproduct of the problems of free speech, resulting in trolling, conspiracy theories and rampant mis- and disinformation. We sought to evaluate social media’s impact on political discussion by analyzing Twitter’s role in the abortion controversy. We examined three hashtags in this controversy: #abortion as a seemingly neutral tag, #bansoffourbodies as more pro-choice and liberal-leaning, and #abortionismurder on the conservative, pro-life side. Our analysis of these hashtags shows that there is almost zero conversation taking place between the two camps of pro-life and pro-choice; however, within these individual counter-publics, Twitter serves a vital role in offering support, validation, and critical healthcare resources for those who have limited access.
BACKGROUND & HiSTORY
At the heart of the controversy surrounding abortion has always been a conflict between the rights of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Is there a place to draw a line between the two? Is a compromise possible or is it simply one or the other? In 1973, the landmark case of Roe v Wade ruled that is unconstitutional to ban abortions prior to the line of viability at around 24 weeks, the point at which a baby could survive outside the womb (Ziegler). Ever since then (and even prior to) the topic of abortion has been acutely divided into two opposing sides. On one side, the pro-choice side, lie those who are concerned with the rights of the existing woman’s body. They see abortion as a basic human right, that a woman not to be forced to complete an unwanted pregnancy and bring a child into this world. This is seen as a simple act of reproductive healthcare, as well as a private and individual decision. The other side, the pro-life side, sees the termination of any pregnancy as murder, as a life being taken, and sees abortion as a human rights violation. Those in this camp largely feel this way for religious reasons, believing that unborn babies are souls who are not being given the opportunity to be born. Ever since Roe v Wade in the 70s, pro-life advocates have sought to strategically limit all reproductive-health services – not simply the termination of a pregnancy but other reproductive-health services as well, including access and availability of birth control, sex education, fertility resources, and maternal and prenatal healthcare (ACLU “Abortion”). By limiting access to birth control more people are subjected to unplanned pregnancies as well as STDs.
For fifty years, the general consensus in the law and among healthcare workers has struck the balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus at the point of viability, which is a logical intersection between both pressing interests (NPR Live Coverage). But now, this logical point stands in jeopardy because of the new formation of Supreme Court Justices. During his term in office, President Trump was able to nominate a whopping three Supreme Court Justices: Brent Kavenaugh, Niel Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barret, significantly altering the court’s makeup (Rosenkrantz). All three of these new justices are known for their very conservative and openly pro-life views. This new Supreme Court composition gives conservatives a supermajority, leaving just three seats of more liberal-leaning justices. That is why the issue of abortion is particularly salient now, the monumental case heard by the Supreme Court on December 1st, in all likelihood will repeal Roe v Wade, unsecuring abortion rights at the federal level, overturning fifty years of precedence, and freeing up much of the country to allow bans on abortions. This case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is between a state law in Mississippi and the last remaining reproductive health clinic in the state. The law allows a ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, well before the line of viability. Previously, this would have been ruled as unconstitutional, but now, with this new ultra-conservative and openly pro-life Supreme Court, reproductive healthcare faces a dramatic restructuring across America. If the law is upheld and Roe v Wade is overturned, which signs point to that it will, it will pave the way for less and less protection of the right to abortion and millions of women in this country will not have access to wanted healthcare.
TWiTTER METHODS
We chose the hashtags #abortion, #bansoffourbodies, and #abortionismurder because we felt these hashtags fell on each end of the spectrum (pro-life and pro-choice) with #abortion falling somewhat neutral. We chose #bansoffourbodies because it nicely encompasses the pro-choice reproductive-healthcare as a right argument and chose #abortionismurder because it strongly encompasses the opposite argument that to terminate a pregnancy is a human rights violation. Our research process included using both Tweet Archiver and Voyant by using a combination of close and distant reading strategies. In Tweet Archiver we examined the most retweeted tweets and then would zoom in on the conversation by using close reading strategies on a specific tweets. Same thing for Voyant, based on the most frequent words and links it gave us, we would then zero in on specific tweets in Tweet Archiver to take a closer look. Data was gathered from Tweet Archiver during a seven-day period from November 10th-17th, 2021. It should be noted that our sample happened prior to the December 1st hearing at the Supreme Court (another noteworthy thing to mention, if someone retweeted a post during our sample, the screenshot of the post will have the original poster's date, not the date of retweet).
In analyzing our data, we looked to the work of Christina Cauterucci to make sense of our findings. Cauterucci is a senior political writer at Slate who penned the piece “#WhyIDidntReport and #Metoo Have Higher Aims than Converting Skeptics.” She makes an excellent point about the benefit of social media even when skeptics aren’t converted to the other side. She writes, “But there is some utility to the #WhyIDidntReport and #YesAllWomen and #MeAt14 and #MeToo hashtags, even if they never inspire a surge of defectors to abandon Trumpism and the right-wing dogma that regards sexual assault as both a rarity and no big whoop. The hashtags and the abusive patterns that prompt them have set in motion a cycle of female emotional excavation and self-examination, a recurring reminder of the battles feminists have yet to win”. In this passage, she clarifies that even if no one’s mind is changed about sexual assault — that is, no one “defects” or is “converted” from their opinion — there is still inherent value in victims of sexual assault coming together in gestures of support and solidarity. In our conversations surrounding #abortion, we were very interested to see if there were any changed minds around this topic or if there simply existed space online for women facing reproductive droughts to come together in solidarity and connect with like-minded individuals for support and guidance. Therefore, we examined the rhetorical strategies used by each hashtag and assessed the extent to which there was an internal or external focus, sharing of personal narratives or conversation, presuming that there would be little dialogue among participants and assuming there would, of course, be personal narrative but unsure of the exact shape that narrative would take (as a place of solidarity and support or as a means of recrimination and warning).
The other main component we watched in our research was the degree to which filter bubbles emerged. Eli Pariser, the author of “The Filter Bubble” and founder of the public policy advocacy group MoveOn.org, suggests that filter bubbles are their own unique space of information online. However, he emphasizes how we as a society need to be introduced to new ideas, new people, and new perspectives. Furthermore, he claims that algorithms curate a personalized web of information where opinions become insulated in isolated rooms. In an interview with Maria Popova, Pariser states, “It’s a comfortable place, the filter bubble — by definition, it’s populated by the things that most compel you to click. But it’s also a real problem: the set of things we’re likely to click on (sex, gossip, things that are highly personally relevant) isn’t the same as the set of things we need to know.” In this passage, he makes an interesting point about how filter bubbles prevent the circulation of different arguments and opinions. As a result, we are most likely to view information that we want to see instead of what we should see. Therefore, Pariser stresses how algorithms need to reveal information that is both relevant and important, but also challenging and uncomfortable. In the analysis of our chosen hashtags, we wanted to explore the conversations that discuss the topic of abortion. Specifically, we were interested to see if Twitter would enhance people’s interest in seeking to understand different perspectives. We sought to find evidence for discussion or discourse between people making pro-life and pro-choice arguments. We anticipated polarization around the issue but sought to examine whether or not any conversation was taking place. We also sought to examine the different types of arguments circulating on each side, assuming that each camp would have their own entrenched ideology that would be solidified in isolation and possibly somewhat circular.
FiNDiNGS:
HASHTAG ANALYSiS
Major Findings #1
Changed Minds vs Solidarity and Support
In our increasingly polarized world, social media is not necessarily successful in changing people’s opinions on highly polarized topics. While Christina Cauterucci says there is benefit to social media, she argues that it does not come in the form of changing people’s minds. On Twitter, minds are generally already completely made up about certain issues. In her article on sexual assault and the #MeToo movement, Cauterucci says, “Those who think like Trump are far more likely to see easily triggered women who refuse to take responsibility for their own sexual behavior than they are to let a series of tweets awaken them to structural barriers to sexual-assault reporting.” Here, she is saying that those who don't believe victims of sexual assault when they speak out probably aren’t going to be swayed by a series of tweets. Evidence from our analysis supports her argument that tweets don’t change people’s minds. One of the first things that emerged from our hashtag analysis was the intensely polarized nature of each camp on either side of the controversy. Given that abortion is an incredibly divisive and charged topic, this was, of course, expected. You can tell instantly by looking at the tweets below (as well as the one above) which side of the issue they fall on. This trend was true for every tweet we examined. Not a single one showed signs of exhibiting conversation. In the tweets below, you can see how each one already speaks to its intended audience. On the bottom, the top left tweet proclaims we live in a heartless, antichrist world where sinful feminists have casual sex and then spew hate on pro-life supporters. The author of this tweet's accusational tone isn't the kind of open-ended, open-minded dialogue that wins skeptics or people who can be swayed. This person lives in a camp whose values have already been decided. It's clearly black and white and right and wrong. You're with me, or against me. While the tweet on the upper right, the one depicting an SNL skit, doesn't have a demeaning tone it assumes the position that abortion is a right. No room for dialogue, engagement or changed minds here. Simply fact. The last tweet, on the bottom provides a resource to help women who need abortions with an effort to expand the court. This tweet is clearly speaking to an audience that already subscribes to the ideal that women have a right to abortion -- there's a clear villain (those who would sue a woman getting an abortion) and hero/victim (the "poor women" seeking the abortion). Every tweet we examined portrayed a sense that the belief system of the intended audience was already entrenched, or to say it another way: we didn't find any evidence of conversations, dialogue, room for interpretation, or engagement with someone with different ideas -- the tweets are all on a clearly established "side."
Social media serves a purpose in offering support, information, resources and solidarity for those seeking refuge in a common cause and shared experience. Cauterucci argues that social media is inherently beneficial as a means of solidarity and support despite not changing the other side’s mind on a particular issue. Our analysis produced overwhelming and concrete evidence for this argument. Cauterucci says that the hashtags for the sexual assault movement have prompted a new potential for self-examination and social support, saying that the process “help[s] women place isolated incidents in the context of systemic power imbalances and forestall complacency by keeping emotions fresh.” In essence, she is arguing that prior to the internet, women’s sexual assault stayed hidden and isolated within each individual, but the power of social media is that women can expose and express their individual stories that they’ve kept hidden for so long, garnering power by connecting their personal stories with society at large and seeing how their story fits within “systemic power imbalances.” Our findings supported Twitter being used as a “safe space” for solidarity and shared experience as well as fighting for a cause by means of organizing power and connection to vital resources. The most retweeted post for #abortion is from the Lilith Fund. They are an organization that collects donations to provide resources for women who need reproductive healthcare in Texas. Their bio reads: “Financial assistance, emotional support, and building community spaces for people who need abortions in #Texas, unapologetically, with compassion & conviction.” This shows how Twitter functions both as a space of support and community building and as a crucial financial resource and source of information for those needing reproductive help in Texas. Womenonweb.org is another resource that emerged from #abortion providing medical telehealth visits for people who live in areas that are considered “reproductive health deserts.” Women on Web offers online consultation and provides medical help such as prescribing birth control or even remote abortions. It is an invaluable resource for women who live in restricted areas.
Some additional findings on solidarity and shared experience come in the form of personal stories and celebrity endorsements. In the above tweets actresses and a Senator speak out respectively of the positive impacts their own abortions afforded them, citing different reasons such as it was a life-saving measure or the personal benefit and career opportunities it offered versus carrying the pregnancy to term. The tweet on the far right, coming from a healthcare worker in Texas, shares her story on the platform in a very persuasive and effective manor. The photo in her tweet is of her “smiling from ear to ear” on the day she graduated med school 9 years prior with the caption “Yesterday, the governor made my job caring for my community illegal. But today, I’m still here.” This tweet paints an image of healthcare workers as on the front lines of the abortion crisis, this message conjuring an image of tenacity and support for women who suffer at the hand of restrictive laws. She specifically offers her role as a medical professional as her way to care for her community, her tweet a show of solidarity. The artist P!nk amasses solidarity by using her platform as organizing power to direct people to Planned Parenthood’s “Act Now” website (tweet featured below). Her tweet specifically says, “I stand in solidarity” with those seeking reproductive freedom in Texas and then funnels people to the Planned Parenthood website to make a donation of time or money. While P!nk’s original tweet was not in our sample (someone simply retweeted while we ran the Tweet Archiver), her original tweet got over 1,700 retweets and over 10K likes, showing the importance of celebrity endorsements to elevate causes. In this way, she aligns herself with those suffering the most from the cause, providing solidarity and support through the many eyeballs that she can reach through her celebrity stature. Our analysis supported Cauterucci's argument that while social media does not cause people to defect from their cause or previous thinking, there is still innate value of the coming together, community building, shared stories and the support that can be found online.
MAJOR FiNDiNGS #2
Filter Bubbles and Echo-chambers
A trend that emerged in our analysis is that information circulating on each side of the #abortion controversy varies substantially; that is, the pool of pro-life sources, images, and arguments differs entirely from the pro-choice sources, images, and arguments. Therefore, our findings confirmed arguments made by Eli Pariser. In his TedTalk, Pariser explains that a Filter Bubble is “your own personal, unique universe of information that you live in online. What’s in there depends on who you are and what you do – but you don’t decide what gets in and more importantly you don’t see what gets edited out.” Basically, what he’s expressing here is that each and every one of us experiences our own personal ecosystem online and the unintended consequence of this is an information vacuum (or “filter”) that keeps us separated and isolated, unable to connect with the big picture and with each other. This is a perfect setup for polarization, which materialized consistently in our analysis. One area in our findings where this “separate ecosystem” is visible is in the use of outside links, where there is a notable difference in how each side uses outside sources. The total number of links is listed on the table in the photo below. In it, you can see that the pro-life hashtag #abortionismurder uses nearly one-fourth (224) the number of links as its pro-choice counterpart #bansoffourbodies (772). Upon closer examination of the outside links in #abortion, the overwhelming majority made a pro-choice argument. This finding makes sense in light of conservative distrust of scientific and mainstream institutions. Therefore, the few links that were found in tweets making pro-life arguments linked to sources such as Youtube and Breitbart (a conservative opinion and commentary site). Pro-choice tweets had significantly heavier traffic of using outside sources, linking to what most would consider to be more credible, trusted, and mainstream news outlets such as The Guardian, The Nation, SF Chronicle, ABC, and CNN. We also found evidence of pro-choice tweets linking to previously discussed resources such as the Lilith Fund (who help women in Texas pay for abortions if they can’t afford it) and Women on Web (a Canadian non-profit that help people around the world with safe, remote reproductive care) which we covered in the previous segment.
Different arguments, anecdotes, and values circulate within each Filter Bubble, often leading to biased and insulated opinions. Pariser’s explanation for this phenomenon, or at least an element that contributes to it, is as a result of how things circulate the internet based on algorithms. Pariser says there is a struggle between our aspirational selves and our impulsive self and that “the best editing gives us a little bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber, a little bit of Afghanistan. Some information vegetables, some information dessert. The challenge with these algorithmic, personalized filters is that because they’re mainly looking at what you click on first it throws off the balance and you end up surrounded by information junk food.” By using the information diet analogy, Pariser is saying that our perspectives and opinions need to be challenged and have variety. This method of filtration, as we mentioned in our methods section, is how opinions become insulated within isolated rooms. Our findings show the different values and opinions trending within pro-life and pro-choice circles. By examining the most frequent words of the tweets in our sample by using Voyant Tool's analytics, we were able to get a sense of the kinds of arguments that are important to each side. #Bansoffourbodies most frequent words include “health,” “access,” and “care” denoting a concern and ideology that revolves around abortion as healthcare, as a right, as a question of access, and as a choice made about one’s body. On the other side, #abortionismurder's most common words revolve around “babies”, “pregnancy” and “womb” highlighting a care for the child and lifecycle as well as “Jesus,” “pray,” and “evil” which, of course, have religious undertones and presumably create a moral argument where the other side is evil and creating crimes against humanity. #Abortion is a mix of the two, leaning slightly left overall, with words such as “Texas,” “life,” “court,” “law,” “right,” and “women.” These words focus on rights and the laws surrounding them that have recently come into focus around this controversy such as the Texas abortion ban and the Missippi state law banning abortions at 15 weeks. A sense for the values and priorities of the different internet “ecosystems” that utilize each hashtag respectively can be gleaned from analyzing the most frequent words. The values of each side become a justification, and in some cases, a weapon, with which to wield righteousness.
Instead of engaging in conversation, both sides of this heavily polarized controversy deploy information as a broadcast system – where it is picked up, disseminated and circulated over and over again within each side’s narrow bubble. One example of a story that exemplifies this happened in Poland, where there are strict laws prohibiting abortion. A 30 years old, pregnant Polish women died because doctors couldn’t legally operate on her when she needed medical care because they couldn’t terminate the pregnancy before trying to save her. They had to wait for the fetus’s heart to stop beating, which by that time it was too late. This story was picked up by pro-life cicrles, recycled, and widely transmitted across Twitter. The tweets below show how this one singular story is recycled over and over. The tweet on the far left (in Warsaw) was the most retweeted post in our #abortion sample, which was our largest hashtag. You can see how pro-choice is using the tragedy of this incident as an inditement on strict abortion bans. This story of a woman in Poland is being used as a cautionary tale of what could happen in America. You can see the rhetorical strategies at play as well, the tweet in the middle is made to look ominous and menacing by placing the photo in black and white and using red lettering. In this way, we can see that conversation is at a minimum but, instead, topics are shouted from the rooftops, convincing no one, but reinforcing the beliefs of the people who already hold them leading to ever-increasing, polarized divide.
CONCLUSION
Twitter's impact on Democracy
So what then, of Twitter as a democratic tool? In summation, our findings are starkly divided: while the two sides of the #abortion controversy are grievously polarized – each side charged and raging out against the values of the other – there also emerge the clear benefits of community building. Here is a list of harms and benefits as we see them. A significant harm of political discourse on Twitter is the intensely polarized nature of engagement. There is no conversation taking place whatsoever and all talk is one-sided. Minds are adamantly made up as either pro-life or pro-choice and often ready to explode at a hair-trigger touch. As an extension of this notion, online communities exhibit strong filter bubble/echochamber tendencies where the same arguments and ideas are being reshared and circulated over and over, which insulates and solidifies opinions, values, and ideology. Within each filter bubble, perspectives aren’t challenged, and instead of new minds being convinced through conversation, information is broadcast widely in circles to those who already subscribe, reinforcing the belief and ideology even further. This reinforcing nature of belief systems leads to further polarization which keeps us woefully divided and outraged. While this is a hefty and burdensome list of harms, the list of benefits is as uplifting and reassuring as the list of harms is devastating. Our findings confirm that Twitter is also invaluable as a social tool for bringing isolated, hidden experiences together and thus giving symbiotic power to groups who have previously not had any. Therefore, the power it can lend to political activism is groundbreaking. It provides critical organizing power, information, and vital resources to pockets of the country that don’t have access to reproductive health care, which in some instances can be life-saving measures. It also has the added benefit of being a community space where people can share their experiences, find solidarity, and build community. In this way, Twitter has the ability to amplify the best and worst of society simultaneously. It is an outrage-generating machine that keeps us more polarized than ever...while at the same time generating an unprecedented potential for new political action, social solidarity, and civic engagement.
Our findings reinforce the arguments laid by previous scholars, such as the work of Pariser and Cauterucci about Filter Bubbles on the internet and social media’s social value as a healing process, respectively. However, what is unique about our finding is the acknowledgment that both of these processes are happening simultaneously as well as the compounding effect of being exposed to your own belief system continually. As the needle of progress moves forward, both issues seem to ferment and compound. This is important to keep in mind, especially, as more cases continue to come before this newly formed and right-leaning Supreme Court. It is not just the right to abortion that trembles before this new Supreme Court, but there are upcoming cases that will decide the fate of gun rights and the Second Amendment as well as the separation between church and state. What’s plain is this much: social media has a role to play in these perilous times. We’ve seen social media elevate George Floyd’s voice saying “I can’t breath” and bringing the world to its knees is solidarity, protest, and insight. But we’ve also seen rioters, at the behest of the President, organize and storm the U.S. capital attempting to “stop the steal.” As citizens of a democratic society, if we value the process of democracy in the world, it is something each and every one of us must pay close attention to. We must remember that much of the online world – coded in algorithm – remains hidden to our human eyes, and that we must actively attempt to challenge our own perspectives and engage in thoughtful conversation lest we fall into the trap of division, controversy, and outrage.
References
“Abortion.” American Civil Liberties Union, www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion.
Cauterucci, Christina. “#WhyIDidntReport and #MeToo Have Higher Aims than Converting Skeptics.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 24 Sept. 2018, slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/whyididntreport-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-and-other-hashtags-metoo-notokay.html.
Koff, Stephen. "Abortion Controversies: Will the Supreme Court Restrict Rights to the Procedure." CQ Researcher, 1 Mar. 2019, pp. 1-27, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2019030100.
“Listen Live: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in a Landmark Abortion Case.” NPR, 1 Dec. 2021, www.npr.org/2021/12/01/1060105136/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-in-a-landmark-abortion-case.
Popova, Maria. “The Filter Bubble: Algorithm vs. Curator & the Value of Serendipity.” The Marginalian, 2 Nov. 2015, www.themarginalian.org/2011/05/12/the-filter-bubble/.
Pariser, Eli. “Tedtalks: Beware Online Filter Bubbles.” Youtube, 2 May 2011, www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s&t=345s. Accessed 12 Dec. 2021.
Rosenkrantz, Holly. "Abortion Rights: Will the Supreme Court Overturn Roe v Wade." CQ Researcher, 22 July 2021, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqr_ht_abortion_2021
Ziegler, Mary. “Analysis | The Supreme Court Just Took a Case That Could Kill Roe v. Wade - or Let It Die Slowly.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 18 May 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/18/supreme-court-just-took-case-that-could-kill-roe-v-wade-or-let-it-die-slowly/.