Skip to main content

The Twisted Vocabulary of the Pro-Death Movement

 

The Dobbs decision, two years old next week, was a bomb dropped on American womanhood. The fallout from the explosion is being felt in so many ways — both overt and insidious — that it’s hard to keep track, even for those of us who keep track.

Fortunately, we have Jessica Valenti to keep track for us. Ms. Valenti’s newsletter, Abortion, Every Day, is now an important resource for understanding how the various states — mostly red, but also blue — are dealing with the very quintessence of hot-button issues.

I’ve been particularly impressed with how she illuminates the through-the-looking-glass language of the anti-abortion forces, a rich vocabulary of euphemisms and code words that celebrate the unborn while threatening the lives of the born.

Much of this vocabulary is worth passing on, as it gives us all a glimpse into the mindset of what I’ve taken to calling the pro-death movement.

At the risk of repeating myself from past posts, I’ve italicized a few of the key words and phrases Ms. Valenti has identified — language currently in use by cynical people trying to convince us that up is down.

Start with fetal personhood, the core idea from which all the worst ideas are drawn — red-state abortion laws, in particular. Once you accept the nonsense that a fetus is a person — with all the rights and privileges that come with personhood — you can then demand equal protection for the preborn, which would legally equate abortion with the murder of a child.

This drags reproductive medicine into areas of criminal and civil law where it has no business going. Existing statutes that are readily available to any prosecutor can now be used to criminalize women — and their doctors — for any pregnancy that isn’t carried to term.

In states that adopt this equal protection standard, aborting a fetus for any reason opens one to charges of homicide. And, yes, the death penalty has been discussed in several state legislatures.

But it’s not just the homicide laws that are in play. There are child endangerment statutes that can be extended to a woman whose pregnancy is compromised. In theory, she can be indicted based on her health habits, her diet, her workout routine, or even the demands of her job. Anything that might have hurt the fetus is suspect. Were she to drink any alcohol, or take the occasional edible, she could be charged with chemical endangerment, another fraught legal theory.

Two weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court upheld that state’s medieval abortion ban, despite the gut-wrenching, near-death experiences of the plaintiffs. As Ms. Valenti reports:

The justices decided that there’s no problem with the state’s ban, and that the issue was doctors misunderstanding the law—not the law itself. “Texas law permits a life-saving abortion,” the opinion states.

This is, of course, shameless gaslighting. The law is so vaguely written, it’s impossible for any doctor to “understand” the line between legal and illegal, only the punishments for crossing it. Those punishments — loss of medical license, criminal prosecution, or, at minimum, expensive lawsuits — are enough to discourage any doctor from testing the law. And it’s pregnant women who pay the price, in utterly unnecessary risk.

So it’s no surprise that OB-GYNs are now leaving red states in droves, leaving many parts of the country without access to basic reproductive healthcare, let alone abortion. This will inevitably lead to a rise in fetal, infant, and maternal mortality. This is a feature, not a bug — the whole pro-death agenda in a nutshell.

Which brings up the loaded word exceptions, as in “exceptions for rape, incest, or to save a life.” Even when the exceptions are written into law — as in Texas — they are defined so loosely, the medical community can’t apply them without exposing itself to the harsh vagaries of red-state prosecutors and judges.

With no defined standards of acceptable care, it would be a rare doctor indeed who would assume the professional risk of intervening in a nonviable pregnancy. The word ‘nonviable’ itself has been replaced with the term life-limiting, as if being born in a vegetative state is a lifestyle choice.

Meanwhile, the definition of fetal personhood is being expanded to include frozen embryos, which would normally be discarded in the IVF process. This solemn concern for what they call extrauterine children is, of course, a transparent attack on IVF itself, a malignant issue that’s rapidly metastasizing.

But once you call an embryo a child, it follows that the globs of cellular material that assemble themselves into that embryo must also need equal protection. And why stop there? I’ve speculated before about the personhood of sperm, and the existential threat posed by unregulated masturbation. Don’t laugh.

Ms. Valenti maintains, and I’m sure she’s right, that most people in this country want access to abortion for any reason, at any time, with government having no say in the matter whatsoever. Democrats running for office need to shout this from the rooftops, and not get sucked into the Republican trap of negotiating over exceptions or trimesters or the hot button du jour.

As a political issue, abortion is a proven winner, and the pro-death people know it. Euphemistic terminology is the tell. People who twist the language to prettify their intentions know exactly how ugly those intentions look to others.

Democrats need to expose that language. They need to call out the lies behind the euphemisms, and show them for what they are:

Anti-woman, anti-medicine, anti-humanity. Pro-death.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

This Election is All About the Women

  As you probably know, I publish this blog on Tuesdays, so I’ve written this piece with no knowledge of today’s election outcome. Under the circumstances, I had to think more than usual about what I wanted to write.  With everyone’s anxiety levels turned up to eleven, I’m quite sure I have neither illumination nor comfort to offer at this late date, least of all to myself. So I’ve decided to talk about the heroes of the election, win or lose: women. If the American Experiment is to be extended for at least another four more years, it will largely be because women willed it to happen. Yes, the Dobbs decision made it easy for them to turn rage into votes. And yes, the rise of Kamala Harris made it easy for them to fall in love with a candidate. But I like to think they’d have stepped up anyway. It was only two weeks ago, though it seems much longer, when Harris dared to appear on Fox for an interview with Brett Baier . Remember? Nobody expected her to ...

Anybody See Any Bright Sides?

Nothing mattered, in the end. Not the probable dementia, the unfathomable ignorance, the emotional incontinence; not, certainly, the shambling, hate-filled campaign, or the ludicrously unworkable anti-policies. The candidate out on bail in four jurisdictions, the convicted fraud artist, the adjudicated rapist and serial sexual predator, the habitual bankrupt, the stooge of Vladimir Putin, the man who tried to overturn the last election and all of his creepy retinue of crooks, ideologues and lunatics: Americans took a long look at all this and said, yes please. —    Andrew Coyne , Globe and Mail   Leave it to a Canadian columnist to give voice to my utter disgust. Canadians, of course, had no say in our election, but they’ll be hugely affected by it, and not in a good way. The same goes for Mexico, most of Europe, Ukraine, and — come to think of it — just about every country in the world. We just told most of them to go to hell. Shame o...

How Two Montana Democrats Wish They Hadn't Spent Election Day

Late afternoon on Election Day, before the dismal returns began coming in, I was copied on an email from a friend of a friend, a guy I’ve never met in person, but who has been a reader of this blog for several years. John’s story was terrifying when I first read it, but as that unhappy evening wore on, it grew into a sort of metaphor for what was happening to the rest of us. Trust me, John’s night was worse than ours. He and his wife Julie spent it in fear for their lives. They had been living their dream retirement in the wilderness of Western Montana, on a mountainous property four miles from town, but two miles from their own mailbox. To them, this was an idyllic lifestyle, a home in the woods, exactly what they wanted. But in recent months, it had all turned dark, and the blame is entirely Trump’s. As long as a year ago, John had written privately to several friends, including me, about the extreme Trumpy-ness of his adopted region. There was trepidation,...