Pro-life Semantics Misleading and Unjust
By Sarah Bird
Contributing Writer

The "pro-life" movement survives on loaded terms and misleading rhetoric. The term "pro-life" is used in opposition to "pro-choice," which creates an understanding that those that are pro-choice are somehow also anti-life. As pro-choice indicates a belief in a woman's fundamental reproductive rights, it shows a deep respect for the life of a woman.

It is therefore erroneous and inappropriate to allow the opposing group to adopt the aggrandized title of "pro-life." It is far more accurate to refer to this faction as anti-choice, for it represents groups that do not support a woman's right to choose. Similarly, "pro-choice" does not correspond to "pro-abortion," for the pro-choice movement simply believes that a woman should have the ability to determine her rep roductive health, be it motherhood, adoption, or abortion. The anti-choice groups have been allowed to manipulate the public's opinion for too long through misinformation and emotionally charged language.

Anti-choice groups also manipulate public opinion through use of the term "partial birth" to describe a third trimester abortion. The terminology is horrific, because "partial birth" has a distinctly murderous sentiment. The anti-choice movement has been successful in convincing the general public that this particular abortion comes post-viability in the third trimester. There are two distinct flaws in the notion of a "partial birth" abortion.

First, the American Medical Association does not recognize the existence of such a medical procedure. Second, and perhaps more alarming, per the convoluted definition by the anti-choice groups, "partial birth" abortion can alternatively qualify abortions as early as the first trimester, far before the possibility of viability.

In essence, "partial birth" abortion is an inappropriate linguistic invention of the anti-choice movement intended to strengthen their argument. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that "partial birth abortion bans" are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recognized two flagrant errors within the proposed ban.

First, the law had made no allowance for medical exceptions. It would seem that the purported "pro-life" groups were perhaps only selectively supportive of one's right to live. The Supreme Court also ruled that a "partial birth abortion ban" created an undue burden on the pregnant woman, for the ban was intended to appear to cover intact dilatation and extraction abortions, but in fact loosely defined "partial birth" abortion in such a way as to qualify nearly all abortions. In March, Congress was able to pass the bill S.3, the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003." This new law stands in direct opposition to the Supreme Court's ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, because there is no exception made in order to protect women's health.

President Bush has been making deliberate progress towards the reversal of Roe v. Wade. A woman's right to choose stands in a perilous state as Congress and the Bush administration invade the privacy of doctors' offices. Though it may seem superficial to work for women's rights by challenging linguistics, it is critical to upset the anti-choice movement's efforts to mislead public opinion.