Posts Tagged ‘anti-choice’

National Public Radio made the decision this Spring to change the way that they cover stories concerning abortion. They’ve announced that they will no longer use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” but will instead use “abortion rights supporter” and “abortion rights opponent.” The linked article is by NPR’s ombudsman, and I’d also recommend reading her previous thoughts on the topic, since they helped to precipitate the change. That can be found here.

While the terms are a bit more clunky, NPR is not alone in this decision. Almost all other major news outlets had already switched. And while “abortion rights advocate” doesn’t really have the same ring to it as “pro-choice” to my ears, it does seem to convey more of an element of neutrality, which I would guess is NPR’s objective.

But does this really matter? In one of the linked articles, NPR’s ombudsman quotes a linguistics professor from Georgetown University, Andrea Tyler, who discusses word choice. Dr. Tyler believes that when those opposed to abortion rights were able to get the term “pro-life” into everyday use, they “won” the battle of the words. She says:

“It doesn’t seem like a good thing to be anti-choice. But it’s worse to be anti-life. So there’s an inequality in the frames when you say pro-life and pro-choice. Being the opposite of pro-choice is not as bad as being the opposite of pro-life.”

While I’m not sure I fully agree with Dr. Tyler’s view, I do believe that language can be a powerful framing tool in our lives. For instance, I used to say “pro-life” before generally switching to “anti-choice,” partly because that’s the phrase people around me were using and partly because I don’t think there’s anything remotely pro-”life” about many of those individuals (pro-”only the people who do exactly what I think they should do” is probably more accurate, but may be a bit too verbose to catch on). But I am curious to see what other people think about this, or if NPR and I are reading too much into semantics.

What do you think? Do you consciously use a particular term when talking about the opposing sides in the abortion debate? If so, why?

I know that, while writing some of these posts, I can get a bit repetitive in some of my thoughts. You’ll see me talk a great deal about how opponents of reproductive and other rights have a tendency to make stuff up and pass it off as the truth. I have a bad habit of reading far right-wing websites and so I can sometimes fixate on the activities of the more “out there” (to use the best euphemism I can) members of society. But what probably bothers me the most, what infuriates me every time, is hypocrisy. And unfortunately for me (and my blood pressure), it often seems that politicians most opposed to issues I care deeply about are the most hypocritical.

Take, for example, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee (former governor of Arkansas and Republican Presidential hopeful, current Fox “News” host) recently spoke at a pro-life banquet at Purdue University in Indiana. In front of over 650 attendees, Huckabee said the following:

“We cannot allow our country to get to the point where we decide that one life is expendable and another is valuable. We need to recognize the worth of all human beings, not only in politics, but in culture.”

This sounds innocuous enough, as it’s fairly standard rhetoric. It’s an argument that one could hear from just about any member of the anti-choice crowd. But Huckabee’s famous enough that many of his other comments are in the public sphere and, as we’ll see, it’s fairly easy to ascertain that Mike Huckabee doesn’t recognize the worth of all humans… just the ones he can manipulate for political advantages.

Shortly after Barack Obama’s election, Huckabee went on the televised battle royale known as The View. While there, he talked about the significance of America’s first black president and was questioned about his stance on LGBT rights (the video from the link’s been disabled, but the article has the transcript of the appearance, plus a brilliant deconstruction of what Huckabee’s really saying between the lines). In a nutshell, Huckabee basically states that he doesn’t believe that LGBT rights is a civil rights issue and that, because of this fact, laws shouldn’t be passed to protect LGBT citizens. His rationale for this belief? The fact that not enough gays have been beaten or killed. Yes, seriously.

In other words, in Huckabee’s eyes, for LGBT Americans to be worthy of equal protection under the law, more of them need to be hate crimed (on a side note, I’ve often wondered what the magic number of beatings/killings is to reach civil rights status. Huckabee’s never explicitly stated). That doesn’t really jibe with the whole “respecting the worth of all humans” belief, does it? After all, it seems that if gays are to meet Huckabee’s litmus test for civil rights, more need to die tragically… which indicates that Huckabee does, in fact, find some lives worthy of being sacrificed.

And this is the rub with the anti-choice crowd. They tend to go on and on about the sanctity of life, the worth of every life, of the unborn… but it’s only talk. In reality, it masks what’s really at stake: an attempt to impose a supposed level of morality on others. Anti-choicers like Huckabee don’t have any interest in the sanctity of human life. If they did, they would actively fight to protect every human being… gay, straight… African-American, white… Christian, Muslim… from harm. But they don’t even come close. Instead, it’s just about making others believe what they do… and even worse, it’s about controlling the decisions of others through rhetoric, deception, and a false sense of morality.

Now, some of you may be thinking that I’m being a little too hard on Huckabee or that I’m unfairly jumping to conclusions. But honestly… I don’t see how you can have it both ways. You either mean what you say… or you don’t. And it seems pretty clear that Huckabee just doesn’t.

Sadly, Huckabee’s just the tip of the hypocrisy iceberg. Because, as you’ll see in the second half of my posting (Galling Pro-”Life” Hypocrites II: Electric Boogaloo)… things can get much, much worse.

If you’ve been checking out our patient forum, you may have already seen a post in Share My Story by use2be.  Her story is one that is not that uncommon -  an anti-choice person finds herself facing an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. 

Sometimes like use2be, the anti-choice person decides her best choice would be to have an abortion.  She may reconsider her belief system and become pro-choice.
  
  “My views and opinions are now very different and I feel very blessed and very glad that women still have a choice”

Or she may not.  In an article, “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion,”  Joyce Arthur collects and shares stories of anti-choice women who’ve sought abortion care. 

Here’s an excerpt from her article:

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.”

Whether or not an anti-choice woman reconsiders her belief system, she is still able to have the choice.  Thanks to the millions of pro-choice activists, voters, legislators, and providers who work to protect and provide that right.  THANKS to all of them and all of you!   

With the Stupak ammendment advancing the anti-choice position, it is more important than ever for all of us to stand up for women’s rights.

Planned Parenthood believes in compassionate care for all women when making life’s most profound decisions.