The thesis analyzes the political and scientific rhetoric used to enact pharmacist refusal clauses. I examine how refusal clauses are rhetorically framed in politics as well as the "scientific" rhetoric advocates use to generate support for these laws. Additionally, I highlight the consequences these clauses have for women.Chapter one focuses on the political discourse of refusal clauses. I develop an analysis of the phrase "conscience" versus "refusal" clause. I expose how pharmacists and refusal clause advocates make discrimination claims using Cindy Patton as a theoretical framework. Finally, I examine "refusal narratives" from women who have been denied contraceptives by pharmacists. The second chapter analyzes "scientific" rhetorical strategies. Refusal clause advocates rhetorically reclassify contraceptives as an abortion method. I will discuss how this strategy of reclassification has wide implications on public policy. In the conclusion I present the negative consequences refusal clauses have on women.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:arizona.edu/oai:arizona.openrepository.com:10150/193267 |
| Date | January 2008 |
| Creators | Silleck, Jennette Lynn |
| Contributors | Geary, Adam, Briggs, Laura, Nye, Jennifer |
| Publisher | The University of Arizona. |
| Source Sets | University of Arizona |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text, Electronic Thesis |
| Rights | Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds