- 🧩 A study found that many anti-mandate protesters who oppose COVID-19 rules also reject abortion rights despite using “my body, my choice” rhetoric.
- 🏛️ Political conservatism, religious beliefs, and distrust in institutions strongly predict opposition to both public health mandates and reproductive rights.
- 🔬 Individuals with high trust in science are more likely to support both COVID-19 mandates and abortion rights, while conspiracy beliefs correlate with opposition to both.
- 🌏 New Zealand residents showed higher ideological consistency, with most supporting both public health measures and reproductive rights compared to the U.S.
- 📢 Understanding these ideological contradictions is critical for developing more effective public health communication strategies.
The Paradox of Anti-Mandate Protesters and Abortion Rights
During the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-mandate protesters vocally pushed back against vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and other public health measures. These protests often featured the slogan “my body, my choice,” a phrase long associated with abortion rights. However, many of the same individuals who rallied against COVID-19 rules also opposed abortion access, highlighting a contradiction in their perspective on bodily autonomy. A recent study published in Sex Roles examined these ideological inconsistencies, revealing how political, religious, and psychological factors contribute to this paradox.
“My Body, My Choice” – A Selective Application of Bodily Autonomy?
The phrase “my body, my choice” has been a cornerstone of reproductive rights activism, emphasizing that individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies without government interference. But when COVID-19 mandates required individuals to wear masks, get vaccinated, or follow lockdown procedures, anti-mandate protesters co-opted the slogan to defend their resistance.
The contradiction arises in how bodily autonomy is applied selectively. Many protesters used personal freedom arguments to oppose government-imposed health mandates but took a government-involvement stance when it came to reproductive rights, advocating for policies that restrict access to abortion. This has raised critical questions about whether ideological positions in these areas are truly rooted in autonomy or if they are shaped by deeper political and religious affiliations.
Key Research Study: Opposition to COVID-19 Rules and Abortion Rights
A research study led by Danny Osborne and colleagues explored attitudes toward COVID-19 mandates and abortion rights in both the U.S. and New Zealand. The study utilized large-scale survey data to identify ideological clusters and analyze the common patterns behind opposition to both public health measures and abortion rights.
The findings revealed that these attitudes were frequently driven by:
- Political conservatism – Those who identified as politically conservative were more likely to oppose both abortion rights and COVID-19 mandates.
- Religious beliefs – Many individuals who objected to abortion rights did so based on religious convictions, which also contributed to skepticism toward government-imposed health rules.
- Distrust in institutions – A deep distrust of government and scientific institutions shaped resistance to both public health mandates and reproductive rights.
These factors played crucial roles in determining ideological alignment, often superseding logical consistency in the application of bodily autonomy principles.
The Three Ideological Profiles in the U.S.
In the U.S., attitudes toward COVID-19 mandates and abortion rights generally fell within three primary ideological groups:
- Support for both abortion rights and COVID-19 mandates (59%) – This majority group upheld both public health measures and personal autonomy regarding reproductive decisions.
- Opposition to abortion but moderate COVID-19 mandate support (28.4%) – These individuals largely opposed elective abortions but supported exceptions in cases of rape, fetal abnormalities, or risks to the mother’s life. They were moderately receptive to COVID-19 mandates, though skeptical of digital contact tracing.
- Anti-mandate and anti-abortion stance (12.6%) – The smallest but most ideologically rigid group rejected both reproductive rights and public health mandates, aligning with a broader conservative outlook.
This third category demonstrated the most pronounced contradictions, embracing bodily autonomy for COVID-19 policy while seeking government intervention on pregnancy and reproductive rights.
How Ideological Profiles Differ in New Zealand
New Zealand showed different proportions in these ideological profiles, though the same patterns emerged:
- Majority support for both mandates and abortion rights (78%) – Significantly higher than in the U.S., reflecting the nation’s stronger trust in science and public institutions.
- Supportive of mandates and abortion rights but cautious about digital tracking (11.5%) – This subgroup approved of vaccine mandates and abortion rights but expressed concerns about privacy relating to COVID-19 digital contact tracing.
- Opposing abortion but supporting COVID-19 mandates (7.1%) – This group demonstrated selective governmental trust, differing from the U.S., where most anti-abortion individuals also opposed mandates.
- Anti-mandate/anti-abortion (3.4%) – A minority population with strong ideological opposition to both public health measures and abortion rights, though less prevalent compared to the U.S.
One key distinction was that New Zealand’s anti-mandate/anti-abortion group exhibited lower cognitive consistency. Their positions were less ideologically rigid, suggesting greater variability in how opposition to mandates and reproductive rights manifests across cultural contexts.
The Role of Politics, Religion, and Distrust in Institutions
Political affiliation played a dominant role in ideological positioning. Conservative-leaning individuals were far more likely to oppose both abortion rights and COVID-19 mandates, whereas more liberal-leaning individuals generally supported both.
Additionally, religious beliefs significantly influenced these views. Many people opposed abortion on religious grounds, and religious skepticism toward science and government institutions often carried over to resistance to COVID-19 rules.
Distrust in institutions—a common theme among anti-mandate protesters—also shaped opinions on reproductive rights. Individuals who rejected scientific consensus on pandemic-related policies frequently rejected expert opinions on reproductive healthcare as well.
Psychological Explanations: Cognitive Consistency and Ideological Rigidity
Cognitive consistency theory proposes that individuals seek coherence in their beliefs. However, anti-mandate protesters who oppose abortion rights exhibit lower cognitive consistency. This ideological rigidity results from in-group reinforcement, where social circles and media consumption sustain specific ideological stances regardless of logical contradictions.
This form of cognitive dissonance allows individuals to hold seemingly incompatible positions—for example, rejecting government interference in personal health choices regarding vaccines while supporting laws that control reproductive decisions.
Conspiracy Beliefs and Mistrust in Science
Individuals resistant to COVID-19 rules frequently subscribed to conspiracy theories, which also influenced their views on abortion rights. Those in the anti-mandate/anti-abortion group in New Zealand were significantly more likely to reject scientific consensus and distrust government health recommendations.
Conversely, individuals with strong scientific trust levels were more consistent in their beliefs, supporting both public health measures and reproductive rights. This divide highlights the importance of institutional credibility in shaping public opinions.
Socio-Cultural Differences Between the U.S. and New Zealand
New Zealand’s higher trust in public health institutions resulted in greater acceptance of mandates and abortion rights. Meanwhile, U.S. attitudes were more polarized, driven by deep-rooted political divisions.
- U.S.: Anti-mandate protesters frequently aligned with conservative, libertarian, and religious groups, with strong resistance to government interference.
- New Zealand: A greater consensus on COVID-19 rules existed, with even many anti-abortion advocates supporting mandates, indicating a more nuanced ideological structure.
These variations stem from differences in political climate, media influence, and historical trust in scientific institutions.
Implications for Public Health and Policy
Understanding these ideological inconsistencies provides critical insights for policymakers and health communicators. Opposition rooted in selective autonomy arguments complicates public health messaging on vaccines and reproductive rights.
To navigate these divides, governments and public health experts must:
- Improve institutional trust by addressing misinformation and fostering transparent communication.
- Recognize ideological complexities instead of assuming uniform opposition or support.
- Tailor messaging strategies to specific ideological groups by appealing to values they already hold.
By understanding the underlying motivations driving these perspectives, more effective public health and reproductive rights policies can be developed.
What This Reveals About Human Behavior
The study highlights how ideological rigidity can override logical consistency, leading to selective applications of bodily autonomy. Political affiliations, religious influences, and institutional trust issues play a major role in shaping attitudes toward COVID-19 rules and abortion rights. Recognizing these contradictions is crucial for fostering more meaningful discussions on personal freedom, government intervention, and public health.
FAQs
What does research reveal about the ideological overlap between anti-mandate protests and opposition to abortion rights?
Research shows that both stances are often rooted in political conservatism, religious beliefs, and distrust in institutions.
How do factors like political conservatism, religious beliefs, and distrust in institutions shape these attitudes?
These factors reinforce skepticism toward government interventions, shaping opposition to both COVID-19 mandates and abortion rights.
Why did anti-mandate protesters use “my body, my choice” rhetoric despite opposing abortion rights?
They selectively applied bodily autonomy to align with their opposition to COVID-19 rules while disregarding it in the context of reproductive rights.
What psychological mechanisms underlie selective bodily autonomy beliefs?
Cognitive consistency theory explains how individuals maintain ideological rigidity, even when their beliefs appear contradictory.
How do these trends differ between the U.S. and New Zealand?
New Zealand showed higher support for mandates and abortion rights, while the U.S. had stronger ideological polarization.
What do these findings suggest about the broader relationship between public health compliance and social conservatism?
Social conservatism often aligns with resistance to government-imposed mandates, shaping selective interpretations of bodily autonomy.
Citations
Osborne, D., et al. (2024). My body, my choice? Examining the distinct profiles underlying attitudes toward abortion and COVID-19 mandates. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01533-7
