In the year since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Republican Party has tested out constantly changing talking points and messages on abortion in an attempt to make its anti-abortion policies sound less extreme. Conservatives are even considering moving away from the term āpro-life,ā fearing that voters have newly negative associations with the label.
With post-Roe outrage showing no sign of waning, strategists are pushing a new lexicon on abortion ā medically, legally and culturally. Some Republicans have abandoned the term ābanā when speaking about anti-abortion legislation, for example. Now theyāre pushing for a 15-week āstandardā on abortion ā which, to be clear, would be a ban. Americans overwhelmingly oppose strict abortion bans, so Republicans are moving away from the term.
Republicans hope that by changing the way Americans talk about abortion, it might help change the way they feel about abortion ā which is, right now, very pro-choice. A record 69 percent of American adults say abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester, and anger over bans has Republicans losing election after election, from ballot measure initiatives in Kansas and Kentucky to the State Supreme Court in Wisconsin.
It makes sense. After all, Americans have now seen a woman vomit before testifying about watching her newborn take pained last gasps for air ā the result of being forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term in Texas. The cruelty of abortion bans is revealed with every new story of a woman being allowed to slip into sepsis or a raped child being denied care.
But rather than change the policies that are causing so much suffering, conservatives seem to believe they can talk their way out of the problem not just with political messaging but also by manipulating medical and legal language.
This summer, for example, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a āGlossary of Medical Termsā instructing doctors on what ālife affirmingā language to use. Under their guidance, a woman whose fetus has a fatal anomaly would be told not that the condition is terminal but that itās ālife limiting.ā Similarly, if someoneās water breaks months before her due date, she would be informed not that the pregnancy is nonviable but that itās āpre-viable.ā The goal is in part to persuade women to carry doomed pregnancies, which can be emotionally and physically catastrophic.
Republicans are even trying to redefine abortion itself, claiming that they are doing so to clarify matters for doctors and patients. In truth, these are deliberate efforts to ensure that fetusesā rights trump womenās rights, no matter the cost to women. And increasingly, that cost is very high.
If a woman in Idaho has a life-threatening pregnancy, state law dictates that the doctor must end the pregnancy in a way that provides āthe best opportunity for the unborn child to survive,ā which the State Supreme Court has interpreted to include performing a cesarean or vaginal delivery. Similarly, a bill proposed in Wisconsin this summer stated that a procedure performed during a medical emergency isnāt an abortion if a doctor āmakes reasonable medical effortsā to preserve āboth the life of the woman and the life of her unborn childā; legislators mentioned using a C-section and early labor, specifically.
In Idaho, the only exception to the trauma of unnecessary labor and delivery or C-section is if the womanās life would be more at risk that way. In other words, instead of having minutes-long abortions, women will be forced by the state to endure major surgeries or traumatic vaginal deliveries, even if that seriously affects their physical and mental health. Thatās what happened last year to a Louisiana woman whose water broke 16 weeks into her pregnancy, long before a fetus is viable. Because the hospital was concerned about violating the stateās laws, which ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, the patient was denied a dilation and evacuation, a standard abortion procedure. Instead she was forced to spend hours delivering a nonviable fetus. Her doctor reported in an affidavit, āShe was screaming ā not from pain but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing.ā When it also took hours to deliver the placenta, the woman hemorrhaged and lost close to a liter of blood.
To anti-abortion groups, mandates like this arenāt just acceptable; itās what they lobbied for. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists even recommends that in cases of dangerous pregnancy complications, like a massive placental abruption, women should be made to labor for up to 24 hours ā even if they must be treated with blood transfusions in intensive care ā in lieu of being given an abortion, in order to deliver āan intact fetal body.ā In situations like this, womenās health and lives are endangered the longer they remain pregnant. To groups that seem to value a fetusās survival above all else, thatās a risk theyāre willing to take.
But anti-abortion organizations like the Charlotte Lozier Institute have long claimed that few, if any, pregnancies ā no matter how ill fated ā require abortions. Instead, the group says, patients with life-threatening pregnancies should be treated with a āseparation procedure,ā or what the association calls a āmedically indicated maternal-fetal separation.ā These nonsensical terms, which have made their way into Republican-backed legislation, seek to decouple abortion from its medical context.
After a group of women whose lives were upended or endangered by Texasā abortion ban sued the state, Gov. Greg Abbott signed narrow health exceptions referring to āthe provision of certain medical treatment to a pregnant womanā ā in other words, an abortion.
Of course, politiciansā using deceptive talking points isnāt new, but when it comes to an issue like abortion, even just a handful of words can have dire consequences. Consider the expression āpostbirth abortionā ā the idea is that abortion involves killing newborns. This is, to be clear, a lie, but that hasnāt stopped candidates like Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis from repeating it.
The phrase āabortion tourismā has also made its way into Republican talking points. This makes it sound as if women traveling to get abortions were taking vacations rather than fleeing their home states for health care, sometimes emptying their bank accounts or staying in shelters in the process.
The goal is to paint Democrats and pro-choice groups as the extremists. The G.O.P. wants to trick Americans into believing theyāre somehow softening on abortion, even as they pass ever more dangerous laws. Every new word and phrase was created in service of that goal.
Itās denying health care to women. Thatās it.
No one gets to use anotherās body without consent.