Public argument and legislative debate in the rhetorical construction of public policy: The case of Florida midwifery legislation

Abstract

This study elaborates on theoretical models of consent formation by examining the interaction of public argument and legislative debate in the construction of public policy regulating a contested social practice, lay midwifery and homebirth. It explores the ways in which the discourse of a representative governing body serves to explicitly represent, omit, or modify public argument in its construction of public policy; and how public policy, once enacted, serves to advance certain meanings over others in public argument, in effect re-norming it. Lay midwifery policy instantiated more positive meanings of alternative birthing practices than those characteristic of the public consensus. This divergence indicates that legislative discourse can be generative, particularly when the crafting of local strategic accommodations leads to the privileging of intra-legislative ideographs over public ideographs.

Claiming Respectable American Motherhood: Homebirth Mothers, Medical Officials, and the State

“…Published accounts of legislative debates in other states indicate that the assessment of good and bad midwives has been a primary concern during efforts to license midwives (Lay 2000b;Miller 1999). In the Virginia legislature, however, it has been activist mothers who have borne the brunt of the attacks against midwifery and homebirth in Virginia, as medical and state officials evoked the image of "bad mothers" and their "bad babies" to make a case against midwives.…”

Deservingness, Deadbeat Dads, and Responsible Fatherhood: Child Support Policy and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of Poverty, Welfare, and the Family

“…Analyses of political rhetoric have focused on diverse contexts, such as congressional hearings on poverty (Gring‐Pemble ), legislative debates around midwifery laws (Miller ), and the influence of State of the Union addresses in the legislative arena (Cummins ). Rhetoric in public policy debates has been argued to have a “generative role” in the “shaping of both public policy and subsequent public argument” (Miller :367).…”

“…Analyses of political rhetoric have focused on diverse contexts, such as congressional hearings on poverty (Gring‐Pemble ), legislative debates around midwifery laws (Miller ), and the influence of State of the Union addresses in the legislative arena (Cummins ). Rhetoric in public policy debates has been argued to have a “generative role” in the “shaping of both public policy and subsequent public argument” (Miller :367). The importance of political rhetoric ultimately goes beyond establishing direct causal links between speech and policy (Zarefsky ), and lies instead in its use in “justify[ing] and evidenc[ing] claims” and in “signal[ing] portentous social and cultural trends” (Asen :287–8).…”

Structuring and Disciplining Apology: A Structurational Analysis of Health Care Benevolence Laws

“…M. L. Miller (1999) and Zoller (2003) called for an exploration of the ambiguous nature of laws and policies and the ways in which this ambiguity influences how they are enacted. Benevolence laws have yet to be explored from a discursive perspective, and this analysis begins the journey into health care policies and laws dealing with medical mistakes and the multiple interpretations inherent in apology law.…”