The anti-abortion movement's campaign to ban the media from using "ban" when reporting on anti-ab messaging is an addition to the anti-abortion myths that I detailed in my article, "Evidence-based Responses to Antiabortion Myths." I will resend it to you and hope that you can make use of it in some way. And I so appreciate your brilliant work on this brutal attack on women! Rebecca Chalker, beckychalker@gmail.com.
Have their been any studies showing how many abortions are granted/denied under the 'exceptions' in anti-choice states? I'm not at all contradicting what AED has talked about many times, how these are exceptions in name only. I'm just wondering if there have been any attempts to quantify this.
Good question, and I wish reporters would try to dig into this, but how can they? Most rapes aren't even reported, so how on earth does an exception work...? It's nonsense and the press and politicians should call it out for what it is -- *the state sanctioning of a crime.*
Not to mention only 4% of rapists are convicted even when they are reported and it takes months in court to get one. Long after the window to get an abortion.
One difficulty is that it's not necessarily that the state is denying permission for an abortion that's supposed to be on the exception list, it's that the patient can't find anyone willing to perform it (because they're afraid of the risk created by the law). It's important because the anti-abortion states will claim they're not refusing any abortions but the result is the same. So any research has to be well designed with this in mind.
Every time they try to push someone for using “ban” the response should be- so a law banning individuals from possessing guns, except for a few exceptions, isn’t a ban? They are so full of shit.
Please Jessica, SOON, tackle the issue of polls about abortion views. Polls record what people think they believe about abortion. Anyone who has worked on abortion services knows that when folks are faced with the reality of an unwanted pregnancy (their own, a family member's, a friend's, etc), their actions frequently are not aligned with what they told the pollster.
Polls are based on the quality of the methodology--wording of questions, sampling issues, ability to reach the appropriate cross-section of respondents. Beliefs/opinions can change and theoretically the shift will be captured in future surveys.
That's true. But polls measure what people think they believe about abortion at any given time. They include people who have personal experience with abortion as well as people who do not. Obviously we don't think popular opinion should determine human rights, but it's useful to know what the public is thinking, particular in a democracy, when they have the ability to cast votes that will elect the people who write and enforce the laws and public policy. As confident as we may be how they would react if the situation were personal, we're probably more interested in how their thinking might affect their voting, activism, charitable activity, etc. and measuring progress on our own efforts to persuade people of the justice of the cause.
How did the anti-abortion movement succeed in getting journalists to label them "pro life"? That is a totally inappropriate label, which journalists should be pressured to stop using.
I worked at newspapers my whole working life and would constantly bring up language, with only occasional success. I think the most economic way to address language is to appeal to the Associated Press. Their stylebook is the universal guide used at most publications dealing with current events. If we focused on changing the AP Stylebook, we could change usage on a grander scale.
I never worked for AP but over the years I got the impression that they tried to accommodate how various factions wanted to be known. The GOP has always excelled at language. When they’re deceptive, like labeling the legislation known as The Heartbeat Bill, some stories explained in parenthetical phrases the absurdity of that name because at the early stage of pregnancy the bill addressed, there is no heartbeat because there is no heart. But it takes space and word count and over time, for expediency I guess the explanation gets dropped. It shouldn’t, but it does. It’s hoped that the message sent in earlier coverage sticks with the reader. Another reference I always argued against was the label “abortion doctor”. That seemed an ignorant and demeaning label for a gynecologist or obstetrician or surgeon giving health care to a patient. But it’s used too often in my opinion.
Yes, we need to be a lot stronger in advocating for our positions. The entire debate has had their framing, their terminology, their incorrect facts (i.e. lies), and on and on. Why? Because they're bullies? Because 'traditional' mindsets get too much deference? Idk but we need to start raising hell.
'expecting the media to tell the truth about abortion is the absolute bare minimum'
Well, they've failed at that for decades, so I don't have great hope for it to change now. The language is important but honestly what's more important is that they're reporting the correct facts. I don't care as much what we call something. Whatever you call crisis pregnancy centers, say what they actually do. Whatever you call these laws, say what they actually do. Fucking do the reporting and tell the people what's going on instead of just interviewing "both sides" and then passing on the spin. THAT'S the media's failure.
Jessica - you are always so on the money. I work for a menstrual equity nonprofit and we are in the throes of crafting a statement in response to the enactment of laws that BAN sex education as well prohibit educators and school nurses from using the word "period" (or "menstruation" or whatever else they decide is unlawful to utter.) We were discussing the importance of using the word "ban" in our staff meeting yesterday. It's powerful, evocative and above all, TRUE. Thank you for this timely take on a very important nuance in language and who gets to say what.
At the risk of being tagged as a naysayer, I read the cited article and the Florida bill is far from enactment. Obviously important to watch and oppose. In a forum that closely tracks legislation, accuracy is important.
Another one I keep trying to call out is "the moment of conception" or "the moment of fertilization." Of course, there's the concurrent idea that this "moment" (which doesn't exist) is when pregnancy commences. How many lies can be packed into three or four words?
Whatever that ‘moment’ is it precedes the expulsion of thousands of ‘post conception unborn babies’ that end up going down the drain every year in Texas. They don’t care about those, clearly,
So they’re not buying their own BS. (Bringing that up to the manipulative person at ‘prolife America’ is what for me blocked.
I really don't understand how a MINORITY--which is what the anti-choice crowd is--has been so incredibly successful in getting its language adopted by so many others, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MAJORITY.
Because they have been insanely focused and dedicated. They have mentally attached the future existence of what they consider their Christian civilization to this cause. The good news is their success may be causing our side to care a lot more about the issue than their side does, the reverse of the situation under Roe.
I hear you, Zach. But patience is the only way we are going to make this happen. I’m not saying we should sit on our butts and do nothing, but this will be a step by step process, with forward wins and defeats. We can’t give up, even if it takes longer than we would like
It’s time for the prochoice movement to call for an end to the use of medieval ‘homunculus’ language--‘preborn babies’ and ‘unborn humans.’ That language, such as what Kazmeryk used,
Is coercive, inaccurate, and deceptive. Men do not deposit fully formed babies into the uterus. They need to use appropriate scientific/medical terms and stop inaccurate representations in the models they choose.
It's an excellent analysis and reporting of how Georgia crafted its fetal personhood law. Your jaw will drop at the language they assumed as fact. (unborn persons, etc. ) It's so uneducated and yet here we are -- Kiplingers ran a piece this past year on how to go about claiming that fetus on GA state tax returns. So it starts as lies and ends up in law.
One thing that bothers me about pro-choice reactions to this language is that they don't call out that it's implying that women are public property for fetuses with the state acting as their "ward". I'm not so concerned about the homunculus language as I am that.
While I agree with all that, we are not doing enough to erode this idea of fetal personhood at conception or ‘heartbeat.’ We have allowed the anti-abortion movement to hold itself up as moral, when they are anything but. Until we erode that belief on multiple fronts, along with the bodily autonomy arguments, we are going to have a hard time reversing these immoral laws in mostly red states. Sadly the most impactful stories will be those of pregnant women’s suffering, but I think eventually they’ll have to act on the expected backlash while leaving the bans largely in place.
The Democrats are not a good job in fighting the disinformation war. They should take out their own billboards. They should talk more about the women who have suffered. I'd make a big billboard in the middle of the biggest Texas highway and portray a scene from the Handmaid's Tale, or Star Trek. Name it "Dystopia, brought to you by the Grand Oppressive Party."
I’m 64 years old, and for most, if not all, of my lifetime, Democrats have sucked at messaging.
The election of Nixon in 1968 really seemed to crush the progressive spirit in the party. After that, they floundered, and let the Republicans tag them as weak and soft. When Reagan creamed them in 1980, the Democrats moved to the right, and though Clinton won in 1992, he did so by messaging (and governing) that was distinctly centrist. Throughout all those years, the messaging from Democrats was never strong. The New deal and the Great Society were left in the dust. Issues like abortion were either rarely discussed, or only discussed in very apologetic terms. Abortion was presented as a necessary evil - “safe, legal, and rare.”
Every time I would see a Democratic media person discuss abortion with a Republican media person, the Democrat would have the look wiped with them. It drove me up a wall. *I* could have debated the issue better, for heaven’s sake. The Democrats acted as though they were ashamed to be pro-choice, and they would utterly flip if they were called pro-abortion. “No one is pro-abortion!” Well, yes, actually, some of us are.
A woman whose options are abortion or having a child she doesn’t want and can’t afford is, in that moment, very much pro-abortion. When I worked as a clinic escort, even the force birth protestors who snuck in the back way for the procedure were very much pro their own abortion!
You can’t message effectively if you start off apologetic about what you’re defending.
Abortion isn’t the only issue the Democrats have approached this way. Anything to do with helping poor people has been treated this way since Nixon, too. Clinton and his “ending welfare as we know it” is another issue they handled the same way.
LGBT rights? It wasn’t until Biden pushed Obama on the issue that we could even get a Democratic president to say same sex marriage was ok.
Democrats need to message as though they actually believe their issues are positive things for the country.
It's only recently though that all Democrats have come to believe that. (And that all Republicans have gone hard hard right.) As late as when Obama was president, there were still lots of Southern Democrats that weren't really at all liberal or progressive. The realignment has our party much more unified on policy, although we still have to hold all of the moderates. So it's a matter of how the change in composition of the party changes our messaging. We still seem to be working that out, and normally primary elections are a big part of that process. The older politicians don't change; they get replaced by newer ones who are different. (Same on the Republican side, to horrific effect.)
Yes, we have grown more unified. And the messaging is starting to change. I’m just pointing out some of the pitfalls that Democrats have run into in the past, and hoping they will not return to the old messaging at the first defeat.
Fetal personhood doesn't support their argument, though. If fetuses are people, they're literally arguing that women are their chattel. More specifically, the state is taking private property for private public use with fetuses being wards of the state. It violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. It's called fetal coverture.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
I read that article. I’m interested in how most regular people think of these things. They are more often than not conflicted--and the ‘baby’ image in their mind is a compelling one. More powerful than most of what’s in that article is the images MYA is putting out of what real embryonic tissue looks like. Here in Texas billboards filed with the image of fully formed babies are still all over the place, along with lies.
I think people don't actually believe early abortions are the alleged killing of fully formed human beings. It isn't about "saving babies" but *using babies* as a justice system to punish women for their "sins". A sentence their partners aren't condemned to, of course. They just make these bad faith arguments as justification for their misogyny and sanctimony.
The anti-abortion movement's campaign to ban the media from using "ban" when reporting on anti-ab messaging is an addition to the anti-abortion myths that I detailed in my article, "Evidence-based Responses to Antiabortion Myths." I will resend it to you and hope that you can make use of it in some way. And I so appreciate your brilliant work on this brutal attack on women! Rebecca Chalker, beckychalker@gmail.com.
What I meant to say was respond to any author who uses a euphemism for ban by sending Jessica’s essay today. I have bookmarked it.
Yeah, that’s right.
Have their been any studies showing how many abortions are granted/denied under the 'exceptions' in anti-choice states? I'm not at all contradicting what AED has talked about many times, how these are exceptions in name only. I'm just wondering if there have been any attempts to quantify this.
It’s too soon, even in states where bans have gone into effect. My guess is they aren’t tracking denials.
Plus, they’re busily telling the press that if a woman is denied, it’s the doctor’s fault for not interpreting the law correctly.
Good question, and I wish reporters would try to dig into this, but how can they? Most rapes aren't even reported, so how on earth does an exception work...? It's nonsense and the press and politicians should call it out for what it is -- *the state sanctioning of a crime.*
Not to mention only 4% of rapists are convicted even when they are reported and it takes months in court to get one. Long after the window to get an abortion.
One difficulty is that it's not necessarily that the state is denying permission for an abortion that's supposed to be on the exception list, it's that the patient can't find anyone willing to perform it (because they're afraid of the risk created by the law). It's important because the anti-abortion states will claim they're not refusing any abortions but the result is the same. So any research has to be well designed with this in mind.
Every time they try to push someone for using “ban” the response should be- so a law banning individuals from possessing guns, except for a few exceptions, isn’t a ban? They are so full of shit.
Other than using "ban," every chance I get, I use "pro-subjugation," "the state ownership of our uteruses," and of course "forced birth."
Please Jessica, SOON, tackle the issue of polls about abortion views. Polls record what people think they believe about abortion. Anyone who has worked on abortion services knows that when folks are faced with the reality of an unwanted pregnancy (their own, a family member's, a friend's, etc), their actions frequently are not aligned with what they told the pollster.
Polls are based on the quality of the methodology--wording of questions, sampling issues, ability to reach the appropriate cross-section of respondents. Beliefs/opinions can change and theoretically the shift will be captured in future surveys.
That's true. But polls measure what people think they believe about abortion at any given time. They include people who have personal experience with abortion as well as people who do not. Obviously we don't think popular opinion should determine human rights, but it's useful to know what the public is thinking, particular in a democracy, when they have the ability to cast votes that will elect the people who write and enforce the laws and public policy. As confident as we may be how they would react if the situation were personal, we're probably more interested in how their thinking might affect their voting, activism, charitable activity, etc. and measuring progress on our own efforts to persuade people of the justice of the cause.
How did the anti-abortion movement succeed in getting journalists to label them "pro life"? That is a totally inappropriate label, which journalists should be pressured to stop using.
I worked at newspapers my whole working life and would constantly bring up language, with only occasional success. I think the most economic way to address language is to appeal to the Associated Press. Their stylebook is the universal guide used at most publications dealing with current events. If we focused on changing the AP Stylebook, we could change usage on a grander scale.
Very good point.
I never worked for AP but over the years I got the impression that they tried to accommodate how various factions wanted to be known. The GOP has always excelled at language. When they’re deceptive, like labeling the legislation known as The Heartbeat Bill, some stories explained in parenthetical phrases the absurdity of that name because at the early stage of pregnancy the bill addressed, there is no heartbeat because there is no heart. But it takes space and word count and over time, for expediency I guess the explanation gets dropped. It shouldn’t, but it does. It’s hoped that the message sent in earlier coverage sticks with the reader. Another reference I always argued against was the label “abortion doctor”. That seemed an ignorant and demeaning label for a gynecologist or obstetrician or surgeon giving health care to a patient. But it’s used too often in my opinion.
If I were reporting on the issue, I'd say "the erroneously-named Heartbeat Bill."
Perfect.
Abortion doctor would be fine, if the GOP hadn’t been allowed to attach shame to the word abortion.
Yes, we need to be a lot stronger in advocating for our positions. The entire debate has had their framing, their terminology, their incorrect facts (i.e. lies), and on and on. Why? Because they're bullies? Because 'traditional' mindsets get too much deference? Idk but we need to start raising hell.
'expecting the media to tell the truth about abortion is the absolute bare minimum'
Well, they've failed at that for decades, so I don't have great hope for it to change now. The language is important but honestly what's more important is that they're reporting the correct facts. I don't care as much what we call something. Whatever you call crisis pregnancy centers, say what they actually do. Whatever you call these laws, say what they actually do. Fucking do the reporting and tell the people what's going on instead of just interviewing "both sides" and then passing on the spin. THAT'S the media's failure.
This is an excellent analysis. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We should all start pointing this out in our own words.
Thank you!
Jessica, can you cut this back and turn it into an op-ed for the Times?
Bookmark this and send to any reporter using a euphemism for the word ban.
You know, that's a really good idea! I've been meaning to reach out to them about another column soon
They won’t want it because I’m sure someone has written a story about abortion in the last 18 months and so it won’t be news worthy.
Or maybe because you’re not talking about trans rights, that transphobic institution might deign to let you publish it.
Do it! And if they don't want it, I'd try the other nationally recognized papers...
Jessica - you are always so on the money. I work for a menstrual equity nonprofit and we are in the throes of crafting a statement in response to the enactment of laws that BAN sex education as well prohibit educators and school nurses from using the word "period" (or "menstruation" or whatever else they decide is unlawful to utter.) We were discussing the importance of using the word "ban" in our staff meeting yesterday. It's powerful, evocative and above all, TRUE. Thank you for this timely take on a very important nuance in language and who gets to say what.
Thank you - and thank you for your work!
Wow! Can you provide more info on the sex ed ban you mention?
Florida House Bill 1069 was recently passed and impacts all sorts of discussion and education of reproductive health care https://www.mdlinx.com/article/proposed-florida-bill-would-restrict-discussions-of-menstruation-in-school/79ZQKHleZXdCCHPs2fTl1b
At the risk of being tagged as a naysayer, I read the cited article and the Florida bill is far from enactment. Obviously important to watch and oppose. In a forum that closely tracks legislation, accuracy is important.
Just wanted to follow up on this @Joeff - here's a link to an article on the enactment of that dreaded bill. https://www.alligator.org/article/2023/07/desantis-k-12-health-education
It’s been passed, and Florida bill 1069 goes into effect today.
Thanks!
I'm guessing all the red states are doing similar things.
Another one I keep trying to call out is "the moment of conception" or "the moment of fertilization." Of course, there's the concurrent idea that this "moment" (which doesn't exist) is when pregnancy commences. How many lies can be packed into three or four words?
Whatever that ‘moment’ is it precedes the expulsion of thousands of ‘post conception unborn babies’ that end up going down the drain every year in Texas. They don’t care about those, clearly,
So they’re not buying their own BS. (Bringing that up to the manipulative person at ‘prolife America’ is what for me blocked.
Thank you for this! Makes so much sense but I didn't notice the language shift on my own.
I really don't understand how a MINORITY--which is what the anti-choice crowd is--has been so incredibly successful in getting its language adopted by so many others, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE MAJORITY.
Because they have been insanely focused and dedicated. They have mentally attached the future existence of what they consider their Christian civilization to this cause. The good news is their success may be causing our side to care a lot more about the issue than their side does, the reverse of the situation under Roe.
And they have been patient. They started working on this 45 years ago, starting at the level of school boards and city councils.
They could afford to be patient. Since no one is actively hurt by legal abortion.
I hear you, Zach. But patience is the only way we are going to make this happen. I’m not saying we should sit on our butts and do nothing, but this will be a step by step process, with forward wins and defeats. We can’t give up, even if it takes longer than we would like
Yeah the political priority right now is to keep the whole federal government from falling to the Republicans or it will be 1933 Germany.
It’s time for the prochoice movement to call for an end to the use of medieval ‘homunculus’ language--‘preborn babies’ and ‘unborn humans.’ That language, such as what Kazmeryk used,
Is coercive, inaccurate, and deceptive. Men do not deposit fully formed babies into the uterus. They need to use appropriate scientific/medical terms and stop inaccurate representations in the models they choose.
When you get a chance, read this.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26410397.2019.1686201?cookieSet=1
It's an excellent analysis and reporting of how Georgia crafted its fetal personhood law. Your jaw will drop at the language they assumed as fact. (unborn persons, etc. ) It's so uneducated and yet here we are -- Kiplingers ran a piece this past year on how to go about claiming that fetus on GA state tax returns. So it starts as lies and ends up in law.
One thing that bothers me about pro-choice reactions to this language is that they don't call out that it's implying that women are public property for fetuses with the state acting as their "ward". I'm not so concerned about the homunculus language as I am that.
While I agree with all that, we are not doing enough to erode this idea of fetal personhood at conception or ‘heartbeat.’ We have allowed the anti-abortion movement to hold itself up as moral, when they are anything but. Until we erode that belief on multiple fronts, along with the bodily autonomy arguments, we are going to have a hard time reversing these immoral laws in mostly red states. Sadly the most impactful stories will be those of pregnant women’s suffering, but I think eventually they’ll have to act on the expected backlash while leaving the bans largely in place.
The Democrats are not a good job in fighting the disinformation war. They should take out their own billboards. They should talk more about the women who have suffered. I'd make a big billboard in the middle of the biggest Texas highway and portray a scene from the Handmaid's Tale, or Star Trek. Name it "Dystopia, brought to you by the Grand Oppressive Party."
I’m 64 years old, and for most, if not all, of my lifetime, Democrats have sucked at messaging.
The election of Nixon in 1968 really seemed to crush the progressive spirit in the party. After that, they floundered, and let the Republicans tag them as weak and soft. When Reagan creamed them in 1980, the Democrats moved to the right, and though Clinton won in 1992, he did so by messaging (and governing) that was distinctly centrist. Throughout all those years, the messaging from Democrats was never strong. The New deal and the Great Society were left in the dust. Issues like abortion were either rarely discussed, or only discussed in very apologetic terms. Abortion was presented as a necessary evil - “safe, legal, and rare.”
Every time I would see a Democratic media person discuss abortion with a Republican media person, the Democrat would have the look wiped with them. It drove me up a wall. *I* could have debated the issue better, for heaven’s sake. The Democrats acted as though they were ashamed to be pro-choice, and they would utterly flip if they were called pro-abortion. “No one is pro-abortion!” Well, yes, actually, some of us are.
A woman whose options are abortion or having a child she doesn’t want and can’t afford is, in that moment, very much pro-abortion. When I worked as a clinic escort, even the force birth protestors who snuck in the back way for the procedure were very much pro their own abortion!
You can’t message effectively if you start off apologetic about what you’re defending.
Abortion isn’t the only issue the Democrats have approached this way. Anything to do with helping poor people has been treated this way since Nixon, too. Clinton and his “ending welfare as we know it” is another issue they handled the same way.
LGBT rights? It wasn’t until Biden pushed Obama on the issue that we could even get a Democratic president to say same sex marriage was ok.
Democrats need to message as though they actually believe their issues are positive things for the country.
Couldn't agree more!
It's only recently though that all Democrats have come to believe that. (And that all Republicans have gone hard hard right.) As late as when Obama was president, there were still lots of Southern Democrats that weren't really at all liberal or progressive. The realignment has our party much more unified on policy, although we still have to hold all of the moderates. So it's a matter of how the change in composition of the party changes our messaging. We still seem to be working that out, and normally primary elections are a big part of that process. The older politicians don't change; they get replaced by newer ones who are different. (Same on the Republican side, to horrific effect.)
Yes, we have grown more unified. And the messaging is starting to change. I’m just pointing out some of the pitfalls that Democrats have run into in the past, and hoping they will not return to the old messaging at the first defeat.
I should have said, ‘while including the bodily autonomy arguments.’
Fetal personhood doesn't support their argument, though. If fetuses are people, they're literally arguing that women are their chattel. More specifically, the state is taking private property for private public use with fetuses being wards of the state. It violates the 5th, 13th and 14th amendments. It's called fetal coverture.
State Abortion Bans: Pregnancy as a New Form of Coverture
https://virginialawreview.org/articles/state-abortion-bans-pregnancy-as-a-new-form-of-coverture/
I read that article. I’m interested in how most regular people think of these things. They are more often than not conflicted--and the ‘baby’ image in their mind is a compelling one. More powerful than most of what’s in that article is the images MYA is putting out of what real embryonic tissue looks like. Here in Texas billboards filed with the image of fully formed babies are still all over the place, along with lies.
The anti choice side can only win by lying and deceiving.
I think people don't actually believe early abortions are the alleged killing of fully formed human beings. It isn't about "saving babies" but *using babies* as a justice system to punish women for their "sins". A sentence their partners aren't condemned to, of course. They just make these bad faith arguments as justification for their misogyny and sanctimony.