Words matter. And the changing of definitions is intentional.
We see this in the media all the time.
Over the years, the Associated Press Stylebook¹ used by most media outlets has moved from “pro-choice” to “reproductive rights” to “abortion rights.”
For the AP’s classification of the pro-life side, it shifted from “pro-life” to “anti-abortion rights.”
You see what they did there?
They frame the words to communicate a negative connotation when talking about anything life-affirming. By being “anti-abortion rights” or working for an “anti-abortion organization” you are now automatically associated with something wrong. You are “anti.”
NPR (National Public Radio) is similar. From their Guidance Reminder: On Abortion Procedures, Terminology & Rights:
ABORTION RIGHTS:
On the air, we should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion rights," but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights" ... Do not use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in copy except when used in the name of a group.²
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The latest trend against the life-affirming language is dangerous for women.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of all organizations has teamed with an ad agency in a push to reframe any sort of abortion regulation or ban as “forced pregnancy.”
In their odd try at discrediting common sense health and safety regulations for abortion facilities, they neglect the fact that their antics put women in danger.
“Forced” means compelled or involuntary. The only way a pregnancy is “forced” is through the brutal act of rape, forced sexual assault, which should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The ACLU is muddying the meaning of the word “forced” in an endeavor to alter language for its political ends, and in doing so the ACLU diminishes the traumatic impact of the heinous crime of rape.
It is an affront to every victim of rape, exploitive to any women facing an unexpected pregnancy, and insulting to pregnant women on the whole.
Common sense abortion regulations are NOT “forced pregnancy” laws.
To claim that the absence of unfettered abortion equates to “forcing” women to be pregnant would be comical for its absence of truth and logic if it were not such a dangerous and demeaning use of language. This is yet another irresponsible projection of a falsehood so common in today’s illogical cancel culture, in this case the target being the pro-life cause.
One can only assume that the ACLU is being so flippant with their use of the English language because they are intentionally trying to use words to manipulate women.
Tweet This: To claim that the absence of unfettered abortion equates to “forcing” women to be pregnant is a dangerous and demeaning use of language.
The reality is that many women feel forced or coerced to have an abortion; a fact to which the abortion lobby purposely turns a blind eye.
Not forced to give birth, but to abort.
According to a 2017 survey published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons³, 75 percent of women who had an abortion said they experienced “at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancies.” Nearly 1,000 women participated in that survey.
This pressure comes from significant others, pimps, parents, and friends. All the people in an abortion situation who, like abortion providers, are not the ones to actually go through with the abortion procedure, nor must they live with the physical, mental, and spiritual implications of that procedure for the rest of their lives.
In its loose use of the term “abortion bans” the ACLU casts a broad - and vague - net in order to use scare tactics to confuse the public into going along with what the ACLU ultimately wants: abortion with no limits. Again, an irresponsible and dishonest use of words.
Everything is an abortion ban to the ACLU, falling under their ridiculous “forced pregnancy” definition:
Pre-Roe ban: Law enacted before 1973 and never removed
“Trigger” ban: Law designed to be “triggered” and take effect automatically or by quick state action if Roe no longer applies
Near-total ban: Law enacted after Roe to prohibit abortion under all or nearly all circumstances (several of this type are currently blocked by court order)
Six-week ban: Law prohibiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (one in effect)
Eight-week ban: Law prohibiting abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy (none in effect)
State constitution bars protection: Constitution amended to prohibit any protection for abortion rights
Let’s take a look at some of the laws being proposed through the states which aim to regulate abortion (as compiled by the Guttmacher Institute4):
• 23 states have laws or policies that regulate abortion providers to ensure patients’ safety; all apply to clinics that perform surgical abortion.
• 17 states have licensing standards for abortion facilities, many comparable or equivalent to the state’s licensing standards for ambulatory surgical centers.
• 12 states require abortion providers to have some affiliation with a local hospital.
• 16 states require that patients be informed that they cannot be coerced into obtaining an abortion.
• 27 states include providing patients with information about the risks of abortion.
• 26 states require patients to wait a specified amount of time—most often 24 hours—between the counseling and the abortion procedure.
Clean facilities and proper healthcare sum up many of the regulations.
And as you can see from the above list, ALL of the regulations are being introduced or enacted to ensure that both the abortionist and his/her facility are held to certain standards in order to protect women.
But these would qualify for the ACLU’s outlandish “forced pregnancy” moniker.
The abortion lobby wants it both ways – for abortionists to be seen as professionals, as “medical providers” - but not be held to the same health and safety standards as medical providers. What sense does that make? And how does it serve women?
Additionally, the above regulations are in place to help ensure that women have all the necessary information they need before making a life-altering decision.
Now let’s now look at some of the bills being proposed in pro-abortion states:
In Maryland, state legislators are planning to introduce the Abortion Care Access Act5, which would allow nurse practitioners and nurse midwives to perform abortions, along with physicians, reducing the medical care and oversight women now receive.
New Jersey earlier this month joined California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington in encoding the right to abortion in state statutes, preventing any abortion restrictions from being implemented at all.
In states like New Jersey, California, New York, Connecticut and Hawaii, there are little to no regulations for abortionists nor their facilities. No parental notification laws. No waiting periods to allow a woman to process the procedure she seeks to obtain. And public funding that then requires – or rather forces – taxpayers to pay for abortions.
In these states, they are putting the abortionist’s profit above the woman’s safety.
Opposing regulation of the abortion industry fosters real danger for women, and the ALCU’s attempt to do so through reckless twisting of words is shady.
Words matter. The ACLU’s abuse of semantics to promote abortion shows that to them, women’s health and safety do not.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News.
1 https://www.apstylebook.com/ Accessed 2/1/2022
2 https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2019/05/15/723678750/guidance-reminder-on-abortion-procedures-terminology-rights Accessed 2/1/2022
3 https://www.jpands.org/vol22no4/coleman.pdf
4 https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe
5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/abortion-supreme-court-roe-texas-mississippi/
