Editor’s note. This edition of Pro-Life Perspective can be heard at www.prolifeperspective.com
NARAL President Ilyse Hogue
In late January, Planned Parenthood—citing the results of focus groups—says its “newest messaging will be moving away from the language of choice,” according to Anna North at buzzfeed.com.
Based on North’s story (spoon fed to her and selected journalists by PPFA), people are “conflicted” over abortion. Not exactly “hold the presses” news. Here’s the two-step argument. According to North in her lead paragraph
“’I’m neither pro-choice nor pro-life,’ said one woman in a focus group commissioned by Planned Parenthood. ‘I’m pro-whatever-the-situation is.’ Said another, ‘there should be three: pro-life, pro-choice and something in the middle that helps people understand circumstances […] It’s not just back or white, there’s grey.’ A recent research push by the organization found that large numbers of Americans feel this way — uncomfortable with both the pro-life and pro-choice labels. And so Planned Parenthood’s newest messaging will be moving away from the language of choice.”’
But it’s worse than that: it’s all the baggage that is associated with the label “pro-choice.” Again, from North:
“Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens said the word ‘choice’ itself might be causing problems. ‘When ‘choice’ got assigned,’ she explained, ‘women didn’t have as many choices’ in any area of their lives. Now that women have more rights and freedoms, she said, maybe ‘choice’ as word sounds frivolous.’”
In this sense, Planned Parenthood is acknowledging one strain of argument from younger pro-abortion feminists: for goodness sake, stop calling us victims! This is 2013, not 1013, afterall.
The interesting part will be how this plays out not just with other high-profile pro-abortion organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America but with younger feminists who are sick up and fed with the Old Guard.
Writing at Slate.com, Amanda Marcotte is less than happy. She concludes
“I can see why Planned Parenthood might want to shed the term in order to get these conflicted people to realize they are on Planned Parenthood’s side. But I’m afraid that the desire to go label-free is doomed to fail. I’m not going to start writing pieces where I describe pro-choice organizations as pro-whatever-the-situation-is organizations or help-people-understand-the-circumstances organizations. Labels are simply part of language, and shorthand rhetoric is part of the political debate. As long as abortion is a contested issue, there’s no opting out of that.
“The only real choice you have is to label yourself or let others do it for you, and of those two options, smart folks will pick the former every time. Pro-choice has its drawbacks, but at least it’s accurate.”
There is a reason pro-abortionists hate the fact that we’ve become more and more successful at convincing the media to describe us as what we are– pro-life. They complain, “Who isn’t ‘pro-life’?” and angrily add if we were REALLY pro-life we’d also be against [fill in the blank with your favorite unrelated issue].
But that’s the genius of our Movement. We have not become the counterpart of the “reproductive justice” crowd with abortion being just one issue among many. And it is that narrow focus—and laser-like intensity–that brings together people who might not (and often do not) agree on anything else.
Which is why Planned Parenthood is retreating from fuzziness—“pro-choice—to total obscurity.
When you’re facing the reality that the American public are becoming more and more aware that “choice” is just code for unrestricted abortion for any reason, you’ll do anything you can to try and obfuscate, deflect and otherwise try and hide your true and real agenda.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a powerful foe. And along with NARAL Pro-Choice America, it is largely the face of the Abortion Establishment.
It will be immensely interesting to see whether the junior partners fall into line or go rogue.