Back in 1973, when Roe v Wade assured a woman' privacy regarding her determination insofar as pregnancy was concerned, an almost immediate hue and cry resounded throughout the land among those who believe women not only "should not" but DO NOT have the right to decide their own reproductive fates.
Because we were all being politically correct (or something), the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' became the lingua franca of the debate over access to abortion services.
Join me below the squiggle for the language part of this discussion.
Jargon has a way of obscuring meaning. As a layperson, if you hear a couple of MDs conversing, chances are, you'll wonder if you've suddenly landed in different language zone. Same is true of Lawyers, IT professionals, or any group which formally, or informally, develops a lexicon for better understanding among those belonging to their niche. The only problem with that, of course, is that people outside their niche probably have a hard time understanding them. So, the original objective of making language more understandable, has the opposite effect, making the subject matter murky to the population in general. It's completely understandable for people in a profession, or an orientation to have their lingo. But it's also pretty important, unless you want to isolate yourself or others from you, that you need to be able to communicate in a way that allows you to share your knowledge or interests with others not of your group.
Now, however, when it comes to the debate which ostensibly started out being about the quite limited topic of abortion, it turns out that the agenda was, or has evolved into, something substantially different and terrifyingly broader.
Frankly, all that polite 'pro choice'/'pro-life' language, kept us from understanding what the real agenda was. And even more, what was being worked toward.
It's long been clear that the issue was never really about the anti-abortion rights crowd's being 'pro-life'. Their support of state-committed murder (capital punishment - doesn't that sound so much nicer?) gave the lie to their being 'pro-life'. The fact that they are perfectly willing to perpetuate a 'health care' delivery system which has increasing infant mortality rates and to abandon to the fates, the welfare of actual ex-utero children, all give the lie to claims of being 'pro-life'.
So, ok. We now can clearly understand, that they are not about 'life' when it comes to women.
Then, what ARE they about? What should we really be calling them? What will pull the veil of jargon away from those wrapping themselves in the 'pro-life' moniker? What turn of phrase will be descriptive, accurate and irrefutable while at the same time, not being hyperbolic?
Is it anti-choice? No.
Forced-birther? No.
Why not?
Because what is happening in a frightening number of state legislatures, and among the most radical (and yes, I chose that word carefully) of the conservatives elected to the US Congress, goes egregiously beyond the issue of pregnancy.
They are seeking to harass, intimidate and subjugate women. Forcing a woman facing a pregnancy which by her consideration needs to end, to go through 'counseling', have unnecessary medical procedures (pre-abortion ultrasounds), have their 'options' explained to them, that is harassment and intimidation. And we already know it's not because of their concern for 'life'. Subjecting women who have had the misfortune of experiencing a spontaneous abortion to criminal investigation to determine whether she contributed to the demise of the fetal matter nature made unviable, is not about protecting life. That 'life' is already gone.
Blockquoting my own text for emphasis:
This is about hating women. These people are women-haters. These are people who just simply flat-out hate females. Nobody who does not hate women would subject a woman who's recently experienced a miscarriage to a criminal investigation.
This 'debate' has now spilled over the cup of abortion rights, and has spread like water on a flat surface into every nook and cranny of female existence.
These women-haters are are trying to criminalize being female.
*******
There is a time to parse language. And there is a time to use language which is as blunt and to-the-point as can be mustered; language which is quintessentially communicative, and beyond misinterpretation. This is a time for the latter.
So, let us get our language in order. The legislators proposing, and voting for these bills are women-haters. Nothing more. Nothing fancier. Nothing LESS. Especially, nothing LESS. Plain and simply;
WOMEN-HATERS