Are We Inadvertently Conceding Moral Ground?

Image Credit: heath_bar / Flickr

The Importance of Language Choices in the Reproductive Justice Movement

By Marcella Kocolatos, Staff Editor

“No one is pro-abortion.”

This is a common refrain in the reproductive justice movement. It is uttered in response to opponents of reproductive choice who suggest that those who advocate for universal access to safe and legal abortion are somehow intent on maximizing the number of pregnancies terminated.[1] It is uttered in response to the accusation that abortion is a profit-driven industry[2] akin to the “$8 billion Abortionplex” satirically imagined by The Onion.[3] And it is clear why people use this response: when not only laypersons but elected lawmakers[4] perpetuate outlandish myths about the goals of the reproductive justice movement, choice proponents naturally seek to dispel such offensive misrepresentations of their beliefs.

I do not consider myself “pro-abortion” because such an ideological position seems flatly inconsistent with the notion of choice. I understand the term “pro-abortion” to signify a general preference for abortion over childbirth, without regard to how any individual woman wishes to proceed with her pregnancy. For me the term evokes support for forced abortions, such as the one Chinese family planning officials forced 23-year-old Feng Jianmei to undergo in 2012, seven months into her pregnancy.[5] To say that I am “not pro-abortion” means that I would not value an individual’s choice to terminate her pregnancy any more than I would value her choice to give birth.

For others who support legalized abortion, the statement “I am not pro-abortion” might carry an implicit value judgment, a suggestion that abortion is an ethically undesirable—even if sometimes justified—procedure. These individuals might morally disapprove of abortion but recognize that their personal disapproval should not dictate whether others may legally access abortion. This sentiment is reflected in statements made by politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who has emphasized her belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”[6]

The acknowledgment that one’s own moral compass should not impose upon the decisions of others undoubtedly comports with the reproductive justice movement, which seeks to secure reproductive autonomy for all individuals. However, the simultaneous suggestion that abortion is a morally objectionable procedure—even if this suggestion is unintentional—arguably conflicts with the movement’s goals.

It should be of concern to those of us working in the area of reproductive justice that the declaration “no one is pro-abortion” might easily be misinterpreted by our opponents—willfully or not—as a concession of moral high ground, as an admission that abortion is in fact a “bad” thing and that all women who choose it must necessarily view it as such, rather than as a morally neutral medical procedure.

Even more worrisome is the stigma that rhetoric of this sort might confer on women who obtain abortions. Evidence suggests that stigma around abortion—unlike abortion itself[7]—can negatively impact the mental health of women who have had abortions. A 2008 report issued by the American Psychological Association found that “interpersonal concerns, including feelings of stigma, perceived need for secrecy . . . and low perceived or anticipated social support for the abortion decision, negatively affected women’s . . . psychological experiences” following an abortion.[8]

At the same time, we cannot avoid all rhetoric that may be read to implicitly condemn abortion. If we did so, we would risk alienating important reproductive justice allies by appearing flippant about the procedure. This is liable to hurt our cause. We do not want to lose opportunities for potential collaboration with those who do not feel comfortable aligning themselves fully with the reproductive justice movement.

There are inevitably going to be certain trade-offs involved in the language choices we make when we advocate for reproductive justice, whether as laypersons or as trained activists. This is a lesson I have learned firsthand as a member of NYU’s inaugural Reproductive Justice Clinic. Through the Clinic, I participated in drafting a press release applauding a decision in a child custody case with which the Clinic was involved. My classmates and I had to make painstakingly careful decisions about how we wanted to represent our position and about how best to do that without using language that might lend itself to distortion. One struggle we encountered was how to recognize the role that men play in the reproductive lives of most women without suggesting that men may make reproductive decisions for women. We also had to figure out how to concisely explain the legal dynamics at play, including the constitutional rights implicated, in a manner that was colloquial but, at the same time, did not mischaracterize the relevant statute, procedural history, or the court’s holding.

The rhetorical savvy generally required for good lawyering takes on a different hue when engaging the public than it does when engaging a court. Attorneys working to advance reproductive justice—particularly those who interact with the media—must remain as conscientious of the words they use as must on-the-ground advocates. Those of us who advocate for universal access to safe and legal abortion do so because we believe that complete reproductive freedom is necessary to a moral and just society. We must be wary of using language that might inadvertently convey to our adversaries, as well as the women and men we advocate for, that we believe otherwise.

---

[1] See, e.g., Steven Ertelt, Planned Parenthood Wants to Increase Abortions Globally 82%, LifeNews.com (Jan. 17, 2012, 8:50 PM), http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/17/planned-parenthood-wants-to-increase-abortions-globally-82.

[2] See, e.g., Susan Michelle, What Does Planned Parenthood Do With Its Millions?, LifeNews.com (Nov. 23, 2011, 11:24 AM), http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/23/what-does-planned-parenthood-do-with-its-millions.

[3] Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex, The Onion (May 18, 2011), http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476.

[4] See, e.g., Dino Grandoni, Congressman Falls for The Onion’s Planned Parenthood ‘Abortionplex’ Story, The Wire (Feb. 6, 2012, 11:41 AM), http://www.thewire.com/national/2012/02/congressman-falls-months-old-onion-story-about-planned-parenthood-abortionplex/48344.

[5] David Barboza, China Suspends Family Planning Workers After Forced Abortion, N.Y. Times, June 16, 2012, at A6, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/world/asia/china-suspends-family-planning-workers-after-forced-abortion.html.

[6] See, e.g., New Beginnings: Foreign Policy Priorities in the Obama Administration: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs, 111th Cong. 24 (2009) (statement of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sec’y of State of the United States), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg48841/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg48841.pdf.

[7] Susan A. Cohen, Still True: Abortion Does Not Increase Women’s Risk of Mental Health Problems, Guttmacher Pol’y Rev., Spring 2013, at 13, 13 (2013), available at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/16/2/gpr160213.pdf.

[8] Brenda Major, Mark Appelbaum, Linda Beckman, Mary Ann Dutton, Nancy Felipe Russo & Carolyn West, American Psychological Ass’n, Report of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion 92 (2008), available at http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf.