Gender and congressional voting on reproductive health and rights

The United States has been a leader in the international population arena for five decades, but the domestic policy debate around international population and reproductive health issues has been increasingly characterized by politicization and partisanship. The Mexico City Policy (MCP) provides a concrete example through which to study this growing divide. I undertook a content analysis of every congressional floor debate on the MCP since 1995 to understand: 1) how the gender and party affiliation of members of Congress have influenced their support for international reproductive health, and 2) the tone of discourse employed by male and female, Democratic and Republican members, when speaking and voting on the MCP. I analyzed floor debates and statements to assess the content, tone and language employed by legislators, taking into account members' position on the issue, gender, political party and stance on abortion. I find a growing partisan divide around these issues in both voting and speaking patterns. Among other findings of potential use to advocates, I conclude that female members engage more frequently and more positively on these issues than do their male counterparts. Further, the evidence suggests that women representatives represent in their discourse the interests of women around the world more frequently and more positively than their male counterparts. Supporters of international family planning, in particular, speak to the health, rights and empowerment of women around the world, and the responsibility of the United States to support these women. Opponents tend to speak about women in far less feminist ways.