Stop Ceding Ground By Using Their Language

Stop Ceding Ground By Using Their Language

Rhetoric and the Forced Birth Movement

The History of the Movement 

(Cribbed from the Politico article Randall Balmer- full text available, no paywall!) If you've read this thorough and well-research article, you can skip this part, I suppose.

I am nothing if not a historian, so here's some context for this conversation: 

The incorrectly named "right to life" movement began, as so many movements in the US, as a movement to preserve segregation and uphold white supremacy.  When Roe passed, even strident Christians believed...that it was fine. 

W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

The movement, despite what its adherents today may tell you, grew out of a push to keep federal funding for all-white K-12 schools in Mississippi.  Richard Nixon ended IRS tax exemptions to segregated schools and catalyzed the forced birth movement with the help of arch lord Conservative Heritage Foundation founder, Paul Weyrich. 

Weyrich tried and failed to consolidate the right into a cohesive movement. He wrote: 

“The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition,” Weyrich wrote in the mid-1970s...

But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990.

When the IRS began surveying private Christian schools about their admissions policies (in 1976, fully 3 years post-Roe!) and revoking their tax exempt status for their failure to admit Black students- Weyrich found his cause.

But! Creating a religious voting bloc that openly campaigned on segregation would be challenging. Weyrich and others blamed Democrat Jimmy Carter for Bob Jones University losing its tax exempt status- even though Nixon initiated the policy. Because they incorrectly blamed President Carter, the evangelical, racist right would do anything to stop another Democrat from ascending to the White House.

When "pro-life" Republican Roman Catholic activists successfully campaigned against Senate  Democratic candidate Dick Clark, Weyrich knew he finally had his vehicle that would galvanize the right: abortion. 

Roe, by the way, had been law for 5 years. 

Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer- who believed that legalized abortion would lead to infanticide and moral decay-  and pediatric surgeon C. Everett Koop, teamed up to create a sea of abortion propaganda that wouldn't be out of place outside of a Planned Parenthood today. 

Although Carter sought to reduce the number of abortions in the US, he would not seek an amendment outlawing it, which contributed to his election loss in 1980. Jerry Falwell claimed credit, because of course he did. In 1983, Bob Jones University's case reached the Supreme Court, where they lost 8-1 in 1983. Ronald Reagan made the sole dissenter- the lone justice to support BJU's (hah!) right to receive federal tax dollars while refusing entry to Black students- William Rehnquist- the chief justice of the Supreme Court. 

So yes, abortion became the cause that united and galvanized many right-wing religious voters- but segregation is the true soil that the movement grew from. 

You can listen to more about Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority in this two-part Behind the Bastards podcast episode. Spoiler: Jerry Falwell is not a good, loving, kind man. 

Part 1 | Part 2

So What About Language? 

From its outset, the religious right's concern about abortion has been based on a lie: abortion was simply a cause to motivate religious conservatives to show up and vote in droves against Democrats and moderate Republicans. For decades. At the cost of any other policies, objections to a candidate, etc. 

And it worked. Wildly well. Look around. 

An extremely wealthy, not religious at all TV star became president, in part because he promised to be "pro-life," so much so that he put a rapist and an incompetent cult follower into lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court with the help of "right to life" GOP members and moderates who were too naive to listen between the lines or too well-paid to acknowledge a lie when they heard it.

I'm looking at you, Susan. 

Anyway, 

I don't doubt that many rank and file religious folks have strong feelings and opinions about abortion, but I doubt that so many of them over the last HALF CENTURY would have become single-issue voters for the GOP without the intervention of wealthy, powerful, and influential men like Weybach, Falwell, Bob Jones, and others who wanted maintain their lily white Christian fiefdoms AND be rewarded with tax benefits for doing so.

Even though this movement was founded, essentially, as a cover for blatant racism and other far-right causes, we have, collectively, adopted so much of the movement's language to our detriment. 

When we use the language of an oppressive movement that was founded on false pretenses, we cede territory and give the movement legitimacy. We're using the words of the far-right movement as if they were lovingly and gently crafted in good faith or with any input from medical professionals who were not in on the propaganda. 

The ability to name your movement and define its own terms is an exercise of power. Getting other people to use that name? Power. 

See: The Anti-Federalists became the Democratic-Republicans 
See: Colonizers refusal to call Indigenous nations by their own name (Calling the Ancestral Puebloans "Anazai," meaning 'ancient enemy' to the Navajo, rather than Puebloans)
See: Using a trans person's chosen name, or using someone's correct pronouns
See: Getting a shitty nickname as a kid, and everyone in school calls you the shitty nickname. 

Media, political candidates, everyday people have absorbed, internalized, and re-distributed the radical right's propaganda for them.

I am done. I will no longer use the opposition's language. We cede power when we do. 

We give up yards after the down, if you want a sports metaphor. 

Language I am Retiring Because I Will Not Fight on Their Terms

I am no longer using the terms "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" to describe these movements. For one, the originators of the movement didn't give a shit about either until it became a way to gain power.

Pro-life, as I am sure you have seen the memes, would include a fight to reduce our horrific maternal mortality rate, which is highest among Black parents who give birth. A pro-life party would seek to feed hungry children (regardless of their parents income, immigration status, drug use, etc.), educate those children, provide childcare, education, healthcare- basically everything a child needs to grow up to be a well-adjusted and healthy human. 

Being pro-life means supporting children in foster care and in adoption agencies. Pro-life means reducing suicide, it means loving gay and trans people. It means allowing *gasp* gay couples to adopt children if they choose. It means that every single child has a safe and loving home and an opportunity to achieve their dreams. 

Being really and truly pro-life requires spending. 

The movement pushes for none of that. They do the opposite. 

The Venn Diagram of states that oppose expanding healthcare, that cut education and food stamps spending, and that oppose abortion is a circle. Just look at Mississippi and their outcomes:

The state of Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, and the highest rates of low-birth weight and maternal death. 

Anti-abortion suggests a movement that seeks to implement proven strategies to reduce abortion: medically accurate, comprehensive sex education (only 13 states require it), access to affordable, long-lasting birth control, paid parental leave/paid sick/family leave, higher wages/lower housing costs, healthcare, affordable childcare, early education programs, etc. etc.

It is the destruction of a culture of violence, when men feel entitled to the bodies of others. A culture without abuse or coercion for sex. (What! That's impossible!, you say. I say, use your imagination.) 

Basically, anything that helps one prevent unwanted pregnancy- including the use of force or coercion- and makes raising a child less of a financial struggle.

The movement pushes for none of that. They do the opposite.

In fact, a movement pretending to concern itself with reducing abortion has done the opposite: In Mississippi, where a whopping 62% of pregnancies are unplanned, insurance companies are not required to cover contraception (even in cases of medical need, I am guessing), and educators are banned form showing proper contraceptive use.

In Florida, Ronny De vetoed a bill that would offer long-lasting birth control to lower income people. Ronny claims that *preventing pregnancy* is against his "pro-life agenda."

Side note- This case study shows that IF given the chance to ban birth control, including long-lasting birth control like IUDs, DeSantis absolutely will.

 The irony? The bill was advanced by Senate President Simpson who believes birth control is a healthy part of a pro-life agenda (I'll give him that). 

We do not need to use these terms when they do not accurately describe the movement

So let's call it what it is: a forced birth movement. Or hell, as Congresswoman Mary Miller called it in a Freudian slip: a movement for white life.

More of the Rhetoric We're Constantly Repeating and Debunking

There's so much forced birth propaganda, from grisly videos and images to little quips that seem to come up again and again, even in "center" or "neutral" media. We've been flooded with this shit for so long, we've internalized it. It's so insidious, it's snuck in, even past people who should know better. 

• The biggest myth of all, one that seems especially true given the Dobbs ruling, is that there is a ton of support for banning abortion. 

There's a little variation in polls, but this Pew poll (which has more conservative numbers) shows that 61% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. There are VERY FEW issues in American where 61% of citizens agree. 

This poll shows other numbers, but you get the idea. Abortion is popular. The reasons Roe was overturned have nothing to do with popular support, but due to fifty years of single issue voting, funding forced birth candidates, and laser focus. 

• Partial birth abortions (I know wikipedia isn't a source, but you can find all the sources therein)

Oh, this takes me right back to my high school years, the Bush years, where I sat with my best friend Chris and we discussed exactly how we'd see this moment come in our lifetime. 

Firstly, this is not a medical term at all, it was invented in 1995 by Charles Canady, the current chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court (see: entrenched power). The procedure it describes accounts for less than .2% of all abortions and typically occurs when a fetus is going to be stillborn/there is a late-term miscarriage, the life of the parent is at risk, or will have severe abnormalities that make it incompatible with life (ie: the baby will be born without a brain, lungs, of other organs). 

It is easy to imagine then, that people who undergo late-term abortion are doing so under horrible stress and duress, not because they hit 24 weeks and decided NEVER MIND. 

Those people deserve compassion for having to undergo a very difficult, painful choice or experience. Not shame or humiliation. 

The truth is that MOST abortions- 90% of abortions- are performed in the first trimester (before 13 weeks). In 2020, medical abortions (ie: abortion with medication) made up 50% of those abortions. 

• If you're not ready to conceive, don't have sex/What about just being safe?/A baby is the consequence of sex! 

Excuse me, that sound is my head whistling from my blood boiling. Not only does this absolve all responsibility from men, it also doesn't account for situations like rape, incest, abusive relationships with sexual coercion (which *is* rape, by the way). It doesn't account for broken condoms, or stealthing (a practice where the condom is removed without consent), or the very-possible event of birth control failure (since none of them are 100% effective). We don't even have comprehensive, medically accurate sex ed in schools. Where do young people- or adults!- learn to practice safe sex if they don't come from a family that openly discusses these things? Googling it is a nightmare, unless you know where to do.

This shitty advice assumes that what, married people who don't want kids must either undergo a sterilization surgery that's not always covered by insurance, or never have sex again? 

Furthermore, and I say this as someone who adamantly does not want children and has never wanted children: calling a child a consequence of "bad" or "immoral" behavior is absolutely fucked up. 

A child should be brought into the world by people who want a child, who are ready, able, and willing to love and care for it.

A child is not, and should not be, considered a punishment.

We truly are a fucked up and punitive society when we call A HUMAN BEING a consequence of an accident, abuse, or simple oops. 

• "Killing babies" or any grisly photos 

You've definitely seen the gruesome and graphic photos of limbs and blood. They may be abortion photos. They may be of stillborn fetuses. They're most likely from other countries, possibly decades ago, taken without consent. No one knows where those damn photos are from, because the person who originally took them refuses to say how he got them and what they're really of.

One photo, used to assert the claim that "abortion kills BABIES," is actually a photo of a stillborn baby. A photo of a family's stillborn child- a child who was very much wanted- has been splashed all over the internet as propaganda. Although the mother of the baby decided she was ultimately OK with the photo being used that way, the photo doesn't reflect the reality of when most abortions are performed. (Often at that point, if an abortion is required, something has gone wrong.) 

FURTHERMORE: If the forced birth movement truly believed that a fertilized embryo was the exact same as a baby crying in front of them, where are the lines of people waiting to gestate extra embryos from IVF procedures? Don't those embryos matter? Or is the priority only on embryos already in a womb? 

AND TW: Here's a photo of the reality of an abortion performed at a clinic between 6-8 weeks (it's towards the bottom). This link also shows the graphic photos referenced above. If you don't want to click at all, that's OK. 

• Heartbeat at six weeks! They feel PAIN. The Bible says life begins at...

I've heard MANY well-meaning people repeat these oft-repeated statements as support for "heartbeat bills" and it's simply not true. At six weeks, a fetus has "cardiac activity," meaning activity where the heart will grow. It is not a heartbeat, because it doesn't have a heart. Medical researchers also agree that fetuses do not feel pain until the third trimester. 

Not everyone is a Christian who believes in the Bible. That's great for your worldview and belief system. By all means, believe what you like. But I personally don't care what the Bible says about abortion. 

• But it's so dangerous!/Pills are CHEMICAL abortions.

It's no more dangerous than any other routine procedure (because it is a routine procedure). You know what is dangerous? Pregnancy. Delivery. The mental toll of raising a child that you very much did not want and are not mentally, emotionally, or financially ready for. 

So what? Advil is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Chemotherapy is a chemical. Eyedrops are chemicals. Essential oils are chemicals. 

• I'm fine with abortion but some people use it as birth control! 

First of all, roughly 1 in 4 people with wombs have had an abortion. The likelihood that they ALL used it as birth control is absurd, just mathematically. 

If you want people to use birth control, they need to be able to access it. Make it accessible. 

• I regretted mine./I was forced into it. 

I am deeply and truly sorry. That is a terrible thing that you experienced. No one should be forced to make a *choice* they don't want to make, especially when it comes to reproduction. I am sorry you were put into that position. 

One story is not a feasible policy for an entire nation. There are just as many stories of people who don't regret it, felt they made the correct choice. There are as many stories of people who had appointments, and *chose* to have a child instead. The operative word: CHOICE. 

• It's NEVER necessary, especially after X weeks! / Only the life of the parent is at risk! 

Look, there are plenty of stories of ectopic pregnancies (which is fatal to the fetus and the person carrying it, when it ruptures, without an abortion), or miscarriages where the body does not fully expel the fetus, leading to sepsis/infection/death. 

There are also stories- and many more will come- where pregnant people need life-saving cancer treatment, which can harm or kill a fetus, being delayed treatment until the pregnant person can travel to a state with legal abortion. Who decides when the parent's life it as enough risk? 

At what point does cancer threaten the life of the pregnant person, if not upon diagnosis? Will they have to wait until the cancer spreads, becomes harder to treat, before being allowed an abortion? 

What about this person, who has to carry their fetus- that will not live outside the womb, that she can feel seizing and suffering daily- until it dies or until she goes into labor? At what point is her mental anguish enough? 

What about people who are early in their pregnancy, who need emergency surgeries that *might* harm the fetus? Will they have to wait until they're near death before the procedure can happen? Not only is this unfathomably cruel, it also adds recovery time, time away from normal life, like family, work, care.

Who decides when the pregnant person is "at-risk" enough? Surely, waiting until vitals are crashing- especially in the case of illnesses like cancer- adds an undue and additional burden to nurses, doctors, and of course, the person recovering.

In this way, restrictions on abortion at arbitrary dates do more harm than "good," no matter how well-intentioned they are. 

When a person is going into sepsis because their body did not expel a miscarriage, or is bleeding out because of a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, time is better spent performing an abortion (which may also be called a D&C) than on the phone with lawyers to ensure that the doctor will not go to jail or lose their license.  

The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is abortion. The treatment for miscarriage may be abortion. It may be called a D & C. Arbitrary restrictions on abortion can lead to doctors waiting until the pregnant person is *dying* before, even though the life of the parent is supposed to be protected, even at 15 or 20 or 24 weeks. 

Abortion is a *medical* term. It may also be called a D&C, a dilation and curettage, to remove tissue from the uterus. 

• Well its up to the states now, just VOTE.

I am a poll worker. I love voting, the very idea of democracy, where we all have a voice. Unfortunately, without the Voting Rights Act, we are seeing more and more reports of voter suppression, more voter suppression bills on the horizon, gerrymandering, dark money in elections, election meddlers who have openly attempted to subvert the will of the people by refusing to certify the votes, etc. etc. 

What do you do in Wisconsin, where the Republican maps chosen by the Republican state Supreme Court essentially make it so the GOP controls the legislature by default? Hope they don't have a 2/3 majority to override a Democratic governor? I think we can do better. 

What do you in Louisiana, where SCOTUS justice decided that its fine, actually, to intentionally dilute Black voting power? 

Screaming JUST VOTE is folly because: firstly WE DID and two, voting is about to get MUCH HARDER, especially in swing states with large populations of voters of color. 

If we want people to truly participate in democracy and it to count, we need to get rid of Citizens United to stem the flow of dark money into politics, have automatic voter registration and universal mail ballots to every citizen who is eligible. We need to make it as easy as possible to vote and for those votes to be counted. 

Abortion should be a medical decision. Don't want one? Don't get one. 

We do not need to cede ground by using the religious right's terminology or do their work for them by repeating their propaganda. 

Language is powerful- so instead of using their shortcuts and repeating their propaganda- take the extra seconds to use accurate language.