The purpose of this chapter is to compare analyses of so-called pro-life (antichoice) rhetoric with the content of anti choice amicus curiae briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The plan of the chapter will be to identify Right to Life (RTL) advocacy positions and then discuss how RTL rhetoric in briefs reflects or departs from the rhetoric of advocacy more generally.
Three amicus briefs from antichoice advocacy organizations in Roe v. Wade will be considered, identified as RA, RB, and RC, respectively. RA is the product of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which describes itself as "a non-sectarian, interdisciplinary organization that is committed to informing and educating the general public on questions related to the sanctity of human life" (RA 491); RB is the product of Certain Physicians, Professors and Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a segment of the College holding views different from those of the organization per se; RC is the product of an organi zation described as Americans United for Life. Five amicus briefs will be considered in Webster v. Reproductive Health Ser vices, identified as WA, WB, WC, WD, and WE, respectively. WA is from the NRLC. WB and WC are noteworthy because filed by govern ment entities, WB by the Solicitor General of the U.S. Department of Justice and WC by the Louisiana Attorney General. WD is product of the Catholic Church affiliate men's organization Knights of Columbus; WE is product of a coalition of RTL cross-sectarian Christian organizations (e.g., Catholics United for Life, Task Force of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality).
The briefs each approach Roe v. Wade or Webster from a slightly different perspective, but they share three principal characteristics. The first characteristic has to do with custom ary court protocol. The briefs frame their arguments with refer ence to legal precedent (including Supreme Court decisions) and (above ...