I'm a man. I'm proudly pro-reproductive rights. I don't know if I'd ever want my partner to get an abortion or not, but I do know who I wouldn't want making the final decision: anyone but her.
That said, I think in light of the Stupak Coathanger Amendment (which strikes me as a very effective term, btw), linguistic framing can make a big difference in terms of the final outcome of this health care fight. Linguistic framing certainly isn't the magic bullet it may have seemed to be in 2005. But on the margins, like keeping wavering progressive men committed to women's rights, I think it can make the crucial difference between an outcome we like and one we don't.
In particular, I'd urge progressives to use the terms "reproductive rights" and "reproductive freedom" rather than the terms "women's rights," "abortion rights," or "pro-choice." The reason is that the "reproductive rights" frame broadens the fight to everyone, i.e. gives men a clearer stake.
As a progressive, I really want this crucial healthcare bill to pass, and I strongly support certain rights. If I hear that getting it passed might require infringing on some women's rights, well that's not good enough. Yet, despite all that, as a man, there's a part of my brain that's still tempted to say, "Well, it is just some rights for women. Maybe we could let that slide this once so we can just get this sucker passed." The same is true if the term is "abortion" ("aw, that's just one medical procedure among many...we can let that slide") or "choice" ("choosing things is good, but health care is better...we can let that slide").
But all that changes if the term is "reproductive." Reproduction is a natural part of our biological lives. Heck, even men like me have a pretty significant stake in reproduction. To take away rights related to a natural part of our biological lives...well that would just be totalitarian and inhumane, regardless of gender. That's what slave breeders did. That's what eugenicists were interested in.
The logic of government intrusion in natural biological processes that gives this frame its strength is actually the same logic George Lakoff has identified in the right-wing rhetorical references to the so-called "death tax" — death is a natural part of our biological lives, and it seems inhumane and cruel to therefore tax it, even if it is the estate that's really getting taxed. That difference might not be enough to sway huge swaths of opinion, but it could definitely factor into how hard the different sides fight.
It's like government trying to regulate puberty or menopause or male pattern baldness: there's just no place for that. Except it's more, because emotions and instincts run much higher around reproduction and death. Obviously "reproductive rights" would be utilizing that same principle of biological processes to push a progressive point of view where "death tax" was designed to push a radical right-wing point of view; but the power cuts both ways.
As I say, framing this issue a little better isn't a magic bullet. Women's rights are a good thing, talking about them isn't wrong, and many progressives will rightly see this as, in fact, a matter of women's rights. But it's undeniable that there is a segment of the population for whom "women" can only ever refer to someone other than the self. Setting the terms of this debate to lean towards the progressive point of view via a universally applicable biological principle could be a big boost to the cause, even if only by bolstering the commitment of those who are already supposedly progressive on the issue overall.
***
My name is Will Bunnett. I do online communications for Democratic campaigns at a firm called Blackrock Associates in Berkeley, CA, though in this instance I speak for myself.