November 6, 2003
LANGUAGE AS A WEAPON:
In Anti-Abortion Campaign, One Leap for Incrementalism (ROBIN TONER, 11/06/03, NY Times)
President Bush's signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on Wednesday was a moment of political triumph for the anti-abortion movement, a reflection of its influence with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president.But it was also, leading opponents of abortion say, a validation of the movement's long-term strategy of incrementalism, restricting abortion step by step as part of the larger battle to turn public opinion against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion.
Regardless of how the courts ultimately rule on the new legislation, several of its advocates described the long fight for passage as a "teaching moment" that will endure.
"When I tell people what Roe v. Wade means, as far as how broad the right of abortion is in this country, even people who are, quote, pro-choice, will say, `That's not right,' " said Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania and a leader in the fight for the bill, which bans a type of abortion used in the second and third trimesters.
If the legislation is overturned by the courts — and a temporary restraining order blocking its enforcement on a few doctors was already issued in Nebraska on Wednesday — this would serve only as another object lesson in judicial tyranny, some opponents of abortion asserted.
One especially revealing aspect of this victory is that news organizations refuse to refer to the law by name in their headlines--or sometimes even in their stories. NPR and our local newspaper refer to a "certain procedure" and many media only use the term "partial birth abortion" inside of stories, where they can preface it with "a procedure which opponents call". When your opinions can't withstand the use of honest language, you're in big trouble. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 6, 2003 8:37 AM
Dishonest language is closer to it. The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was literally invented by abortion foes at some confab because it sounded more emotive than "Dilation and Evacuation", the proper medical term. They would have called it "Murderous Zombie-like Brain Sucking Butchery" if they thought they could get away with it, but that would actually be more accurate since it doesn't imply that the woman is having contractions or giving birth the way "Partial Birth Abortion" does.
(I write this as someone who supports the ban, BTW.)
The traditional term is infanticide.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 9:51 AMThe "traditional" medical term sound like
the more dishonest. "Evacuation"???
The E in D&E refers to evacuation of the uterus. A doctor might use the procedure to remove a fetus that had died in utero.
The word infant implies full development, so referring to abortion as infanticide in inaccurate. Feticide is a more proper word for later term abortions, but unfortunately no-one seems to use it.
The media is obviously biased to the pro-choice view. None the less, they made the right choice in refusing to use the misleading term, "partial birth abortion."
Peter:
The Court itself defined personhood at viability, which late term fetuses are. Besides it's a law now. What other law does the press refuse to call by name because they disfavor its result? Aren't they supposed to report the news accurately?
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 11:03 AMThey even call the Patriot Act the Patriot Act, though I wish it had never been given such a stupid name.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 6, 2003 2:38 PMPeter C -
This document refutes your argument:
"In federal (and most state) law, a "live BIRTH" occurs when the baby is (1) all the way outside the mother, even if the cord is still attached, and (2) displays any respiration, heartbeat, or movement of voluntary muscles. See the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection law enacted in 2002: http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html
Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Even early in the fifth month, babies who are expelled by premature labor will often be born alive. At that stage the baby's lungs are too undeveloped to permit sustained survival, but if the baby draws breath it is a LIVE BIRTH.
Medically and certainly legally, "live BIRTH" is an entirely different concept from "viability" (which relates mainly to lung development and the capacity for sustained respiration). The "live birth period" begins long before "viability." Even under the doctrine of Roe v. Wade, once outside the mother, a human who shows any signs of life is a "person" protected by law and the Constitution, whether he or she lives for five minutes or 100 years."
Since the doctor starts the delivery process that would result in a "live birth" as defined above, then causes death with a 100% degree of probability, I really don't see how the term Partial Birth Abortion is deceptive at all. It is pretty damn generous compared to infanticide; the procedural difference between the two is nothing but a way to escape murder charges, to my eyes.
Peter C
You seem to forget that the word "fetus" only came into common, popular usage when abortion became a cause. I don't recall too many scriptural or literary references to women being "with fetus".
The term partial birth abortion represents a modest attempt to force us to see the reality of what we are doing and stop hiding behind technical jargon that neuters all perception. Surely there is nothing inflammatory about the word "birth", is there?
Posted by: Peter B at November 7, 2003 1:38 PM