1. See Staggenborg, Suzanne, The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict (New York, 1991)Google Scholar, for a fuller account of the history of the movement up to 1990.

2. See Eisinger, Peter K., “The Conditions of Protest Behavior in American Cities,” American Political Science Review 67 (March 1973): 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McAdam, Doug, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (Chicago, 1982)Google Scholar; Tarrow, Sidney, Struggle, Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements, and Cycles of Protest (Ithaca, N.Y., 1989)Google Scholar.

3. Tarrow, Struggle, Politics, and Reform, 34.

4. Ibid.

5. See Tarrow, Sidney, Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy, 1965–1975 (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar.

6. See McCarthy, John D. and Zald, Mayer N., “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory,” American Journal of Sociology 82 (May 1977): 1212–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. See Snyder, David and Kelly, William R., “Strategies for Investigating Violence and Social Change,” in Zald, Mayer N. and McCarthy, John D., eds., The Dynamics of Social Movements (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 212–37Google Scholar.

8. See McCarthy, John D. and Zald, Mayer N., The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization (Morristown, N.J., 1973)Google Scholar.

9. See Gamson, William A., The Strategy of Social Protest (Homewood, Ill., 1975)Google Scholar; Staggenborg, Suzanne, “The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement,” American Sociological Review 53 (August 1988): 585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York, 1977)Google Scholar.

11. See, for example, Gamson, William A. and Schmeidler, Emilie, “Organizing the Poor,” Theory and Society 13 (July 1984): 567–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Cloward, Richard A. and Piven, Frances Fox, “Disruption and Organization: A Rejoinder,” Theory and Society 13 (July 1984): 587–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Oliver, Pamela and Furman, Mark, “Contradictions Between National and Local Organizational Strength: The Case of the John Birch Society,” International Social Movements Research 2 (1989): 155–77Google Scholar.

13. See Carmen, Arlene and Moody, Howard, Abortion Counseling and Social Change (Valley Forge, Pa., 1973)Google Scholar.

14. In both 1982 and 1983 the Senate tabled anti-abortion bills, in large part because of infighting among anti-abortion supporters in Congress as to strategy. And, in a 5–4 ruling, the Court struck down most of the restrictions on abortion rights that had been passed by state and local governments. See Rubin, Eva R., Abortion, Politics, and the Courts: Roe v. Wade and Its Aftermath, Revised (Westport, Conn., 1987), 140–43Google Scholar.

15. Speak-outs were originated in the late 1960s by women's liberation activists who believed that women should speak out publicly about their experiences with abortion and other issues rather than letting doctors or other “experts” define the debate.

16. In 1980 the president of the Cook County Board of Commissioners ordered the hospital abortion clinic closed, resulting in a long battle to reopen the clinic. In 1993 a new board president issued an executive order to the hospital to resume operation of the clinic. See Patricia Donovan, “The Restoration of Abortion Services at Cook County Hospital,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (September-October 1993): 227–31.

17. Judge Bork, who was President Reagan's first choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, was on record as opposing Roe v. Wade. His nomination was defeated through pressure from a coalition of groups opposed to his judicial philosophy, including civil rights as well as pro-choice organizations.

18. The Court did strike down a requirement that a married woman inform her husband of her intention to have an abortion as an undue burden in its Casey decision.

19. See Eliza Newlin Carney, “Those Winds of Change Are Tricky,” National Journal 25 (May 1993): 1176–77; Judith Warner, “Mixed Messages,” Ms., November-December 1993, 21–25.

20. RU-486 is the French-made “abortion pill” available in Europe that was banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during the Bush administration.

21. Jill Smolowe, “New, Improved, and Ready for Battle,” Time, 14 June 1993.

22. Adam Clymer, “Senate Passes Abortion-Clinic Crime Bill,” New York Times, 17 November 1993.

23. Eliza Newlin Carney, “Abortion-Rights Test,” National Journal 24 (October 1992): 2304–7.

24. Dodson, Debra L., “Abortion Politics in State Elections: Comparisons Across States” (New Brunswick, N.J., 1991)Google Scholar.

25. A “radical-flank effect” is the impact of more radical groups within a movement on more moderate groups. As Haines, Herbert shows in Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954–1970 (Knoxville, 1988)Google Scholar, this effect can be either negative or positive. In the case of the civil rights movement, Haines found a positive radical-flank effect when black power groups came into the movement. As a result of their presence, the resources of moderate civil rights organizations increased as contributions came in from those who preferred the moderate goals of integration and civil rights to the radical goals of separatism and black power. In this instance, however, the moderate groups had already established the legitimacy of their cause and had gained widespread public sympathy prior to the emergence of the black power movement. Anti-abortion groups, however, have always had to battle with abortion rights groups for the moral upper hand (and there have always been some more radical groups within the anti-abortion movement). Consequently, moderate groups were not able to establish themselves as the proponents of an undeniably just cause like civil rights before a highly visible radical flank entered their movement.

26. See Warner, “Mixed Messages.”

27. Ibid.

28. Polls show that the majority of Americans fall between the extremes of the “prochoice” and “pro-life” views on abortion. Most favor legal abortion, but only under certain circumstances, whereas the anti-abortion movement opposes all abortions and the prochoice movement wants to keep abortion legal regardless of the circumstances for it. See Sackett, Victoria A., “Between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice,” Public Opinion 8 (April-May 1985): 53–55Google Scholar.

29. Warner, “Mixed Messages,” discusses this problem in Planned Parenthood.

30. See Oliver and Furman, “Contradictions Between National and Local Organizational Strength.”