Expert participation in 25 years of Wisconsin abortion policymaking.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: 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. STUDY DESIGN: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. IMPLICATIONS 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.