Abigail Lamoutte
Language is a powerful tool that can shape our perception of the world around us. The words we use can influence how we view people, events, and concepts. Keywords and language play a significant role in shaping the progression of abortion debates in American consciousness and memory. The language used by politicians, activists, and media outlets influence how people perceive the issue and the arguments presented on both sides. Even subconsciously, the words we hear that may seem matter of fact or impartial have specific connotations that shape our ultimate perspective on what we hear. This phenomenon is especially impactful in an emotionally charged and highly controversial topic such as abortion. Vocabulary plays a key role in defining the ideological constructions of social movement organizations. Framing of an event or cause through highly specific language is a method to mobilize or maintain the support of members(McCaffery et al). This “tactic” is intrinsic to any kind of social movement or even day to day arguments, but it is important to be aware of how keywords and the underlying connotations of our language may influence how we perceive what is occurring around us.
The most prominent example of utilization of language being put to use in abortion debates are the terms “pro-life” versus “pro-choice.” Supporters of the anti-abortion movement often use the term “pro-life” to emphasize the value they place on protecting the life of the fetus, while proponents of abortion rights use the term “pro-choice” to highlight the importance of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. The use of these terms can frame the debate in a way that puts one side on the moral high ground, while portraying the other side as being in opposition to human life or women’s rights. Similarly, the use of emotive language can also influence public opinion on the issue. Anti-abortion advocates might use language such as “murder” or “killing” to describe abortion, while those who support the right to choose might use words like “reproductive freedom” or “healthcare” to frame the issue in a different light. These terms can trigger strong emotional responses in people, leading to more intense division and rigidity of opinion. Overall, the language used in the abortion debate can have a profound impact on how people perceive the issue and the arguments presented by both sides. There is a “battle” for control of the public vocabulary which inevitably defines the characterization of players on both sides, and the shape that the narrative of abortion in America will take over time.
The language used in abortion debates has evolved over time, reflecting changes in societal attitudes, medical advancements, and political developments. Throughout history women and physicians have made use of a wide variety of abortive techniques, with equally varied responses from societies differing both spatially and temporally. Abortifacient plants and early “surgical” methods were well documented and widely used for centuries, although the level of secrecy or shame demanded by societal opinion was highly varied and is reflected in the informative but contradictory language of primary source material(Hull, pg 11-14). In the late 19th century to early 20th century, the medicalization of abortion began, and the term “therapeutic abortion” was coined to describe procedures performed to save the life of the mother. The word “abortion” began to be used more widely to describe both legal and illegal procedures. Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, the women’s liberation movement and the sexual revolution brought abortion to the forefront of public discourse(Hull). The terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” emerged to describe the two sides of the debate. In the later 20th century, the use of emotionally charged language became more prevalent in abortion debates. “Partial-birth abortion” was coined to describe a specific late-term abortion procedure, called dilation and extraction or D&E. “Partial birth abortion” was not a term used by any medical authority, but it was quickly adopted by the anti-abortion movement and rapidly spread into public imagination(Johnson et. al). In the 2000s and carried through to the present day, language used in abortion debates has become increasingly polarized, with each side using more extreme language to vilify the other. Terms like “baby killer” and “fetus worshiper” are sometimes used by each side to describe the other. The use of scientific and medical terminology has also become more prevalent, with discussions of “viability,” “gestational age,” and “fetal pain” playing a prominent role in the debate. These keywords are used by both sides of the dispute to attempt to dominate public discourse. The overall effect of this type of vocabulary is the reduction of complex issues into simplified, persuasive, and powerfully divisive ideological constructions.
The evolution and impact of language choice is further exemplified in the Supreme Court decisions dictating shifts in abortion regulations. As abortion regulations continue to evolve, it will be important to analyze the effect of specific word choice in court decisions. What effect does the use of “child” rather than “fetus” or “mother” vs “woman” have on the outcome of a court case? In Casey, the record shows that “woman” was used over ten times more frequently than “mother”, whereas in Roe “mother” was the preferred term(Abrams). Does this trend frame the women forced to make these decisions in a different light? Language choice in these highly public court cases can help to mediate and inflame abortion stigma, and ultimately defines the narrative that is carried out surrounding abortion decisions and the role it will take in public memory.
References and Further Reading
Hull, N.E.H., and Peter Charles Hoffer. Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History. University Press of Kansas, 2001.
- A comprehensive history of the abortion in law, society, practice, and language.
Johnson, Timothy, et al “Language Matters: Legislation, Medical Practice, and the Classification of Abortion Procedures.” Journal of Medical Humanities, vol. 38, no. 4, Dec. 2017, pp. 365-380, doi: 10.1007/s10912-017-9457-8.
- Interesting analysis of the influence of language in abortion debates from the perspective of medical professionals
McCaffrey, Dawn, and Jennifer Keys. “Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-Vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking.” Communication Monographs, vol. 76, no. 2, June 2009, pp. 199-226, doi: 10.1080/03637750902846261.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2000.tb02365.x?needAccess=true&role=button
- Analysis of how the role language plays in creating the “frame” of a social movements ideologies and how this is incoporated into the pro-choice and anti-abortion countermovements.
Belluck, Pam. “They Had Miscarriages, and New Abortion Laws Obstructed Treatment.” The New York Times, 29 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/abortion-law-miscarriage.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/17/health/abortion-miscarriage-treatment.html
- News article discussing how abortion debates are impacting necessary medical care – The interplay of medical, ethical, and political terminology and its influence on public opinion
Armitage, Hannah. “Political Language, Uses and Abuses: How the Term ‘Partial Birth’ Changed the Abortion Debate in the United States.” (2017): 1-13
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41054184
- Journal article reviewing the emergence of the non-medically accurate term “partial birth” and its impact on how abortion procedures are viewed.
Abrams, P. (2019). The Scarlet Letter: The Supreme Court and the Language of Abortion Stigma. Geo. J. Gender & L., 20, 327. –
- Book written by Paula Abrams analyzing langauge used in Supreme Court discussions and the influence they have on the ultimate outcome.
I really loved this post and how it shed light on the different complexities of this discourse and its implications. You mentioned the terminology utilized within these court cases and it made me think of how abortion terminology is shown to me in my daily life. The media plays a significant role in shaping the language used in abortion debates. Media outlets often use specific language to convey a particular narrative or bias. For example, some media outlets might use terms like “unborn child” to describe a fetus, while others might use the term “fetus” or “embryo.” The choice of words can influence how the issue is perceived by the public, with language that portrays the fetus as a child potentially eliciting more emotional responses and garnering sympathy for the anti-abortion movement, while language that uses more clinical or technical terms may evoke a more detached and neutral perception of the issue. Moreover, the use of loaded or sensationalist language in media coverage of abortion can create a sense of urgency or crisis, further polarizing the debate. Terms like “abortion war,” “abortion battle,” or “abortion genocide” can heighten emotions and intensify the rhetoric on both sides of the debate, leading to a more hostile and divisive discourse. On the other hand, the use of more neutral and impartial language can foster a more reasoned and nuanced discussion on the complexities of the issue.
This is a really good article; language can really show the different viewpoints of the polarizing fight on abortion. With anti-abortion activists, terms like “genocide”, “unborn child”, and “war”, there is such an emotional connotation in hopes to drive emotions out of people to change their stance on abortion.
Thanks for sharing this! I’m glad to see a conversation being had about how specific language surrounding abortion affects our collective memory. When I was working on my own project, I looked a little bit into radicalization and its connection to language as well as misinformation. That could be an interesting tangent!
I come from a largely-Christian, small town. There are towns around it smaller, but my town is just large enough where a person can be born, live, and die in the same 25 mile area. We do not have access to much education (especially sexual wellness and health education) and because of that a lot of my friends from highschool are parents now. We don’t have a planned parenthood and truth be told if we did it, it probably wouldn’t last very long. Most people in my town have those old southern views on topics such as abortion. an “abortion factory” as I’ve heard them be called would not last long due to vigilante justice. I’ve heard in a sermon before that if “that mother dies during childbirth then that’s the will of God and we are not to interfere” but that sounded so incredibly naive to me, even as a child. Language defiantly has a way of brainwashing people and this article did an excellent job dissecting that.
The power of language is evident in the abortion debate in the United States. Pro- and anti-abortion advocates use their words strategically to influence public opinion and shape the narrative around the issue. Choice advocates often frame their arguments as being about women’s rights and physical autonomy, using language that emphasizes the importance of choice and freedom. Opponents of abortion, on the other hand, use language that emphasizes the sanctity of life and the protection of the unborn child and often use phrases such as “pro-life” to evoke a sense of morality and justice. Language is a powerful tool for shaping how people perceive and understand complex issues, and this is especially true in the case of abortion. In order for individuals to recognize the power of language in this debate and to gain a more nuanced understanding of the issues, the language used by both is important to evaluate critically.
Having also done some research on abortifacients when abortion was allowed before quickening, I saw some highly euphemistic language: “Cures female irregularities,” “cure for all complaints incidental to the female system” for example.
As for the emotional language, I think a true political maverick describes their position on abortion in the emotional terms of the opposing side. A pro-choice individual becomes pro-death while a pro-life individual becomes pro-oppression. Perhaps this reaching-across-the-aisle would do wonders in this age of partisan gridlock.