“Pro-choice”: When a euphemism becomes a euphemism
In January 2013 came news that shocked both sides of the abortion debate: Planned Parenthood had determined the term “pro-choice” was no longer helpful and recommended abandoning it.
This news really was titanic. “Pro-choice” was the abortion movement’s self-chosen descriptive term for over 40 years. To abandon it was to abandon an identity, surely unnerving to activists on the street, who found cover and solace in the euphemism. 
I also imagine hundreds of groups with ”pro-choice” as part of their moniker - say, for instance, NARAL Pro-Choice America – were livid at Planned Parenthood for announcing this edict regardless of dissent. It had to be embarrassing to read in the news one’s name was passé.
On the pro-life side, the announcement was gratifying. We have fought the term “pro-choice” forever as obvious code for “pro-abortion,” hounding the other side with that question: What exactly is wrong with being pro-abortion? Perhaps we simply wore proponents of “choice” out; they grew tired of always being on the defensive.
On the other hand, I, for one, was also a bit unnerved, waiting for the other shoe to drop. What would be the new and improved euphemism for us to battle?
But as of yet ”[n]o pithy phrase has replaced pro-choice,” according to a July 28 New York Times piece, “Advocates shun ‘pro-choice’ to expand message.”
But the article did give more insight as to why the abortion industry is deserting the term “pro-choice,” albeit heavily spun:
Yet 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.
Reason #1: “Pro-choice” has over the course of 41 years ironically come to mean “pro-abortion.” So the euphemism has become a euphemism.
Nor, they add, does it speak to a new generation of young women, who tell pollsters that they reject political labels….
“The labels we’ve always used about pro-choice and pro-life - they’re outdated and they don’t mean anything,” said Janet Colm, 62, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Central North Carolina…. “I used to be a one-issue voter” - pro-choice – “but I think most younger people today aren’t.”…
Reason #2: There is a pro-abortion intensity gap, particularly among young female voters. A May 2014 Gallup poll agreed, finding ”more pro-life voters than pro-choice voters saying they will only back candidates who share their views, 24% vs. 16%.” This translates to a 3-point advantage when the number of voters for both sides is taken into consideration. Thus, the abortion lobby has to broaden its net, lumping abortion with more popular “reproductive justice” issues, like free contraception.
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America [said] “I just think the ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters.”…
But by 2010 some abortion-rights activists began to sense in their outreach to young women, whose support was needed not only for the midterm elections but for the movement’s future as well, that the term pro-choice was virtually meaningless. That was confirmed by postelection polls and focus groups that women’s organizations and Democrats commissioned to understand what went wrong.
Among the findings, according to several people familiar with them: Many young women, when asked whether they were pro-choice or pro-life, said pro-life. Yet they supported the Roe ruling. Explaining the contradiction, Ms. Laguens said these self-described pro-life voters were “talking about their personal decision-making, for themselves, and not about what they want to push on others.”
But such results also showed the weakness of the pro-choice label, advocates and pollsters said.
Reason #3: Quite simply, the pool of young replacement abortion proponents is shrinking. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which is attrition.
[Top photo, via New York Times, is of a ”Pittsburgh rally in 1974, at a time when abortion-rights groups began favoring the term choice”; bottom photo via walkforlifewc.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They’re like really, really mad that the New York Times published this article lol. #rememberherstory
PRO-CHOICE is
The label chosen by those who believe killing humans should be a legal choice. You picked. You got it. You earned it. Now own it.
Your choosing to try to get rid of it now is our Tipping Point.
We are the pro-life generation and you are on the wrong side of history.
“Among the findings, according to several people familiar with them: Many young women, when asked whether they were pro-choice or pro-life, said pro-life. Yet they supported the Roe ruling. Explaining the contradiction, Ms. Laguens said these self-described pro-life voters were “talking about their personal decision-making, for themselves, and not about what they want to push on others.”
Which accomodates pro-choicers too. Young people today have grown up with the freedom that the Roe decision emphasized.
“What exactly is wrong with being pro-abortion?”
What’s wrong is that almost nobody really is. I don’t choose to smoke, yet I also don’t want cigarettes made illegal. That does not make me “pro-cigarettes.”
The nature of the choice being an individual one is evident to the young people.
That does not make me “pro-cigarettes.”
Uh, yes it does. You are okay with people having the legal right to buy and smoke cigarettes (with stipulations of age and place I assume).
Prolifers oppose people having the legal right to kill preborn humans.
If you support women having the legal right to pay to have their preborn children killed you are pro-choice i.e. a proabort.
The nature of this choice is only becoming clearer to the prolife generation.
“That does not make me “pro-cigarettes.”
“Uh, yes it does.”
No, not at all. Pro legal cigarettes, perhaps, but I’m most definitely not “pro-cigarettes.” (Yuck.)
When the history of the Abortion Era is written, I suspect that PP’s announcement to drop “pro-choice” will be identified as their jump-the-shark moment.
Meanwhile, PP is not going to tell us what their new term is. They are waiting for us to figure out that “Women’s Health” and “Reproductive Health” are the new euphemisms for abortion.
Okay, Marcia.
One is either pro- legal child killing or they are not.
I am not.
Praxedes: One is either pro- legal child killing or they are not.
You’re still trying to spin it. With “child killing” you firmly plant yourself in the subjective zone, from the get-go. Granted that a life ends with abortion or miscarriage, but whether “a child” has developed at that point is a matter of opinion, rather than fact.
This logically contorted pretense of acting like not wanting a thing made illegal is somehow equivalent to really “being for” the thing has come up many times.
Praxedes, you have mentioned alcohol use in the past. I’m assuming you don’t want booze made illegal, but would you say you are really “pro-alcohol”? I don’t think so.
Yeah, cuz the idea pro-choice is finally being seen as ironic, because it’s only leg to stand on is that it’s seen as manditory by women rejected by their support network once pregnant. So abortion is not a choice, it’s not a freedom, it’s a submission to a lack of security, a lack of freedom and a lack of choice. New media is making their pins, lined up, readily knock-downable. Their done, and the devil’s working overtime to keep them ahead of the curve. It’s time we catch up, and put them in their place, fast and hard.
Great article. This could be a lengthy Dissertation.
Doug is pro-legal small-human-killing and so are the folks who ‘liked’ his post.
Y’all must be getting dizzy.
” it’s only leg to stand on is that it’s seen as manditory by women rejected by their support network once pregnant.”
No, it’s not “mandatory,” it’s still the woman’s choice (or it’s her choice to not have an abortion).
“Support network” = this may or may not matter, as woman have babies with or without that, and all levels in-between. Likewise, they have abortions for many reasons independent of it.
Praxedes says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm
“Doug is pro-legal small-human-killing and so are the folks who ‘liked’ his post.”
Well, are you “pro-alcohol” or not? Pro-choice or Pro-life, anybody can see that puts the lie to most of what you said, above.
“Meanwhile, PP is not going to tell us what their new term is. They are waiting for us to figure out that “Women’s Health” and “Reproductive Health” are the new euphemisms for abortion.”
Okay, so when they poll young women by asking, “Are you for Women’s Health?” or, “Are you for Reproductive Health?” They will get 100% yes because, duh, everyone is for clean air, safe communities, women’s health, science, etc. They can pick a euphemism so vague that no one will disagree with it and the media has their back, so it’s all good for them.
Right on hippie!
Marcia, have you ever paid someone to kill one of your human offspring?
Do you support others having the legal right to pay someone to kill one of their human offspring?
Have you ever took payment to kill someone else’s offspring?
Are you a pro-abort or not?
Hi Praxedes,
No; it would depend on born or not born, and if not born then stage of gestation; no; and not any more than you (apparently) are pro-alcohol.
“No; it would depend on born or not born, and if not born then stage of gestation; no; and not any more than you (apparently) are pro-alcohol.”
I could be considered “pro-marijuana”, though I don’t use it, think it can cause some problems, and would advocate for regulation. Because I think it should be legal for adults to buy if they choose. Refer to me as pro-marijuana and I’m fine with it, doesn’t mean I personally choose to use it. In the same way you can be considered pro-abortion, whether you like the term or not.
And I don’t see why you would have a problem with the term. If abortion is a personal choice and a fundamental right, if I were for it I wouldn’t have a problem with being called pro-abortion. Heck, in the seventies people proudly labelled themselves pro-abortion.
Jackster, in the same way, would you describe yourself as “pro-alcohol”?
Whether your answer is yes or no, the problem comes because it may be a gross oversimplification, and in fact mostly counter to the situation as a whole.
It’s already going contrary to logic if we deem somebody “pro-something,” when they are not for it, per se, i.e. all other things being equal. It may go well beyond that, too – it may be that the person finds a thing really repugnant, yet still doesn’t favor everybody else being denied the legal choice of it. Then, to purposely bypass the issue of the legality, and to blanket the person with a descriptive term, is if they are simply “for it,” is just plain silly.
Additionally, if somebody were truly “pro-abortion,” and wanted women to be forced to have them, against their will, (nobody would be arguing if the term applied at this point) then they would obviously differ from pro-choicers, demonstrating that there indeed is a difference.
Back a while, in the vein of tattoos, body piercings, etc., there was a rise in popularity of tongue splitting, i.e. getting a forked tongue by cutting it right down the middle, and going so far back in….
Totally grosses me out. Yet and still, I am not saying it should be made illegal (I guess… ;) ) But to say that makes me “pro-tongue splitting” is so far-fetched as to be ludicrous.
And, as I’ve noted before, are you “pro-woman slavery”? The slave owners wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own, and you surely want the will of the woman subverted to your own – in the case of when she is pregnant and doesn’t want to be; when she wants to have an abortion. It takes much less of a logical contortion to get there, versus saying that nothing more than the lack of desire, on balance, for a thing to be made illegal, deems somebody “Pro-that thing.”
[…] I explained in a post last week, the NYT article simply elaborated on a decision Planned Parenthood made 18 months ago to abandon […]
[…] pro-choicers admit over and over and over (and over and over and over) that they are losing the epic battle over abortion, they […]