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“The labels we’ve always used about pro-choice and pro-life - they’re outdated and they don’t mean anything,” said Janet Colm, 62, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Central North Carolina….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]

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

• Suzy B links to an article in the New York Times discussing their efforts to teach politicians and pro-lifers in the public eye how to frame discussions on abortion and life issues.

• ProLifeBlogs features Operation Rescue’s post regarding Planned Parenthood of St. Louis’ choice to make ambulance calls to a private service (despite slower response time than 911) in order to prevent pro-lifers from obtaining 911 call information under the Freedom of Information Act. Prior to this, Operation Rescue had been given a heavily redacted report of a PP ambulance call from the St. Louis Fire Department, which resulted in OR filing a lawsuit. Planned Parenthood’s decision puts the safety of women second to protecting their own supposedly “safe” image, as this particular clinic has had 26 known incidents in the past five years.
• At National Review, Michael J. New discusses the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a Mississippi admitting privileges law, pointing out the court’s odd reasoning and asking if the sole abortion clinic in MS could ever be closed based on their reasoning, even for health and safety violations:
  

  The oddest part of the majority decision is that the court cited the Supreme Court’s 1938 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada as precedent. Instead of admitting African Americans into the University of Missouri Law School, the state gave them a voucher they could use to attend law school elsewhere. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the equal-protection clause, stating that “a state may not shift its equal protection duties to another state.”

  This is the first time the Gaines has been cited in an abortion case, and it’s easy to see why: The case is a very poor parallel. The main difference is that running a law school is a function of the state; providing abortions is not. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have given women a right to an abortion. However, they did not mandate that states had to provide abortions. If the last abortion clinic in Mississippi closed on its own, the state would not be obligated to start opening them up itself….

  It would be unfortunate if Mississippi’s Department of Health would be unable to completely enforce various health and safety rules because of this ruling.

• Saynsumthn’s Blog says Life Dynamics, Inc. has launched a national litigation plan “to educate attorneys on how they can help stop the scandal of family planning centers covering up for men who rape children.”

• At The Vine, Breeanne Howe writes about her experience attending a forum entitled, “Does God Love Women Who Get Abortions?” at a Netroots Nation convention. Netroots is known as a “progressive” online and in-person forum for using technology to influence public debate. Given that Democrats booed the idea of any inclusion of God in their official platform, Howe thought the topic would be interesting – and it was. She says the forum’s title question was the only thing the panel seemed to get right: yes, God loves women who have abortions. Howe also exposes the less-than-Christian views espoused by the purported Christians on the panel, along with the fact that abortion advocates are finding it necessary to change their euphemisms for supporting abortion:
  

  When I arrived, panelist Carolyn Meagher (who isn’t sure she buys the resurrection story!), of First Congregational United Church of Christ (a self-described progressive, inclusive, spiritually alive servant community), was speaking about how churches seek to keep women down. She called it “Kitchen, Church, Kids” which she for some reason shortened to KKK and then equated with Nazi Germany. So to recap, five minutes into the panel the traditional church had been compared to Nazis. We were obviously at the start of an interesting ride….

  My suspicion about Meagher was confirmed at the close of the panel. Democrats have a habit of changing their language when the current language is found out by the majority. In other words, once people understand they are talking about killing babies they need to use different words – as if saying it another way makes it something different. So in ending, Meagher reminded the audience that the term “reproductive justice” should be used instead of pro-choice. In that way they can justify baby murder as a human right.

[Photos via Operation Rescue, The Vine]

by Kelli

Emily Letts, who claims to have filmed her own abortion at her employer, Cherry Hill Women’s Center, is the topic of a new rebuttal video released by the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. CBR says Letts and her abortion clinic employer “created their YouTube video as a disingenuous sales pitch.” The group’s intent in releasing this rebuttal is “to ensure women are not deceived regarding the humanity of their baby or the inhumanity of the abortion which Cherry Hill Women’s Center is trying to sell them.”

CBR wrote in an email:

Elizabeth Barnes, Executive Director of the Cherry Hill Women’s Center and the Philadelphia Women’s Center, is Ms. Letts’ co-conspirator in this abortion industry infomercial. She is also on YouTube proclaiming that “… we need to see more images in the media of women who choose abortion and it provides them a pathway to a new and better life.” CBR replies that what we actually need are more images in the media of dismembered babies for whom abortion provided a barbaric end to life.

The video contains footage from an actual abortion procedure juxtaposed with Emily Letts’ remarks after her abortion.

WARNING: Extremely graphic; contains nudity.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/xr_P4uIfhyU[/youtube]

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: Jill; photo via theolivebranchreport.com]

There’s more than one way to understand religion and spirituality and God. I do have belief in God. That’s why I do this work. My belief in God tells me that the most important thing you can do for another human being is help them in their time of need.

~ Abortionist Dr. Willie Parker reconciling his practice with his religious beliefs as an abortion ministry, Esquire via Patheos, July 31

by Kelli

Big sister Sadie seems to be overwhelmed at the realization that babies – namely, her little brother – don’t stay little for very long.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84DLT4yRcy4[/youtube]

Moms and dads understand your grief, Sadie. Our children grow up too quickly! (But a hundred is still a long way off.) :)

Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.

[HT: Carla]

by Kelli

One of four remaining clinics that provide abortions in Kansas has closed amid a hostile political climate and financial challenges.

Its outgoing manager said Monday the decision was also prompted by a “lack of gratitude” from a young generation of women who take its abortion services for granted.

~ The Wichita Eagle, July 28

Sure, a woman’s main concern on a day-to-day basis may not be abortion rights. Her main concern may be basic healthcare for herself and her kids, or something else. But she has the luxury of abortion rights not being her main concern because it’s been an absolute guaranteed right in this country for 40 years. That means every woman in this country under the age of 40 never had to worry about getting an illegal, unsafe abortion….

That’s a long time to get lulled into a sense of security that that right is never going away — and therefore we don’t need to make its protection a priority….

[tweet_box]That’s a long time to get lulled into a sense of security that that right is never going away.[/tweet_box]

~ Carla Hall, bemoaning the fact that women are taking their “abortion rights” for granted, The Los Angeles Times, July 29

[HT: Troy Newman; photo via ThinkProgress.org]