Where have we heard this before? Pro-abortionists shunning “pro-choice” label

 

By Dave Andrusko

January2013TimeMagcover

Cover of the January 2013 issue of Time magazine

Wait a minute. Didn’t we just write about this? Yes, we did, in January 2013. (See nrlc.cc/1lSbzSf; and nrlc.cc/1oGwFIi.)

Like a snake shedding an old skin, pro-abortionists were keen to be free of the “pro-choice” label. Now—coincidentally with mid-term elections rapidly approaching—once again we read in the Abortion Industry’s in-house newspaper, the New York Times, that “Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message.”

Planned Parenthood was the moving force in 2013. Citing the results of focus groups, Planned Parenthood said its “newest messaging will be moving away from the language of choice.” According to Anna North, writing at buzzfeed.com

“Rather than selecting a new term to replace ‘pro-choice,’ Planned Parenthood hopes to move beyond such terms entirely and present abortion as something too complicated to be divided into two sides. A soon-to-be-released Planned Parenthood video takes this new approach, casting labels like pro-life and pro-choice as limiting and abortion as a complex and personal decision.

“We just don’t know a woman’s specific situation,’ says the ad (not yet online). ‘We’re not in her shoes.’”

There wasn’t unanimity last year, nor is there total consensus on dropping “pro-choice” this year. You have to read Jackie Calmes’ story from yesterday carefully to understand why the renewed emphasis.

The first explanation—and most illuminating–is that “advocates say that the term pro-choice, which has for so long been closely identified with abortion, does not reflect the range of women’s health and economic issues now being debated.” Moreover, they add, nor “does it speak to a new generation of young women, who tell pollsters that they reject political labels — not least one that dates back four decades, to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.”

What does that mean in English?

That the tread on the pro-choice tire is almost completely gone. That more and more Americans self-identify as pro-life, including younger women. And that the Planned Parenthoods are desperate to branch out their interminably stupid “war on women” mantra by talking less and less about abortion and more and more about “women’s health.”

(What doesn’t get discussed, and which is keenly important, is that today’s woman—feminist, post-feminist, traditionalist—has long since grown weary of the victimization game. Conjuring up images of coat-hangers and ‘back-alley abortions’ is both insulting and hugely off-putting.)

What else in Calmes’ story? Pro-abortionists tried to persuade themselves that even though more and more people (male and female) are identifying as pro-life, that didn’t mean they were in favor of limitations. Of course, this also manages to miss that many who self-identify as “pro-choice” are quite willing to support at least some protections, if not many.

“But such results,” Calmes wrote, “also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said.” So, in accordion-like fashion, they expanded to include different labels, all of which had the (intended) effect of putting less and less emphasis on abortion.

What does it say about pro-abortionists that they are giving up “One of the most enduring labels of modern politics — pro-choice”? Calmes gently describes the change away from this meaningless label as a result of it having “fallen from favor, a victim of changed times and generational preferences.”

A more direct way of saying it would be that “pro-choice” is passé. An even clearer description would be that at a time when pro-lifers are succeeding on so many levels, the label is too closely associated with support for abortion.