What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The topic of abortion has been a longstanding and contentious issue in U.S. elections, often becoming a focal point in political debates. The debate primarily revolves around the legal and ethical aspects of abortion, including a woman’s right to choose versus the protection of fetal life. In the 2012 elections, it was Barack Obama and Mitt Romney who brought abortions as a forefront topic in the electoral process. Since then in the subsequent elections, the topic of abortion has been one of the most important. Presidential candidates have always been asked about their views and stances on abortion and their policies on it are some of the very crucial ones that affect the everyday American.
In 2022, the historic landmark ruling of Roe V. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. As of right now in the Supreme Court, there are 3 judges, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson who lean towards a more liberal while the other 5 judges, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito who lean toward a more conservative.
The Republican Party has realized that in the post-Roe outrage showing no sign of slowing down, the conservative party will have to distance themselves from the term “pro-life”. The term has garnered concerns that voters now associate the term with negative connotations. Many Republicans are now abandoning the term ‘ban’ when talking about anti-abortion legislation. Republicans are opting to choose terms such as a 15-week ‘standard’- which would still be a ban as women could not get an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
Republicans have realized that Americans no longer support harsh abortion policies. They hope that by changing the term Americans would be less reluctant to support these policies. As of right now, 69per cent of Americans favour that abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy. There has also been a major backlash on the Republicans for their abortion bans.
Since these abortion bans which the Republicans have been pushing in legislation across different states, the news has heavily featured the repercussions of these bans. Americans have seen almost everything from seeing a woman vomit retelling her experience to 13-year-old rape victims being denied abortions. These powerful stories and testimonies have been seen as the result of the Republican bans and it is because of this that the party wants to disassociate itself with the term. 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.
Also Read: Supreme Court orders primary survey of Shahi Idgah Complex in Mathura
Even though the news has been filled with these stories, the party is more concerned about changing the perspective rather than their policies which have caused so much harm. The party is trying to do so by not only changing the political message behind abortion but also the medical and legal language.
This year, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a glossary of new medical terms that help redefine the medical language related to reproductive rights. The glossary tries to give certain words a so-called ‘positive’ spin to it. According to the glossary, a woman who would have a fetus who has a fatal condition would be told that the condition is ‘life-limiting’. The glossary also mentions certain words such as ‘pre-viable’ rather than non-viable, meaning women whose water broke months before their due date can carry their pregnancy to term. This is nothing more than an attempt to re-write medical language to persuade women to carry doomed pregnancies to term, which can have extreme medical physical and emotional complications. Republicans are not only trying to change the language that is used when it comes to discussing abortions but also trying to redefine it as well.
In states such as North Carolina, women can only get an abortion up to the first six weeks of the pregnancy and in these six-weeks abortion is only allowed for rape, incest or medical emergencies. After the first six weeks, abortions can only be performed for medical emergencies. Most women do not even realize that they are pregnant until they are in the eighth week of their pregnancy. Policy such as this forces women to have unwanted pregnancies without having any choice of their bodies.
Victims of these policies such as a woman in Texas had to go into septic shock because of the state’s laws The legal constraints deemed it a criminal offence to perform an abortion once a fetal heartbeat was detected, unless the mother’s life was at risk. Essentially, the conveyed message implied that her current health condition did not meet the legal threshold to justify an abortion.
This woman was not the poster child that the overstates and pro-life groups circulate, of a young woman who carelessly got pregnant and now wants to get away from the responsibility of having a child. It was rather a woman who was excited to become a mother but couldn’t because of a medical condition, cervical insufficiency, because of which she could not carry her pregnancy to term. It’s important to understand because, for a long time, the conversation that has revolved around abortions has been through the lens of women who don’t want to have children. The conservatives have tried to downplay the other side, the side of women who need to have abortions due to medical complications.
Certainly, the deployment of deceptive rhetoric by politicians is a well-established phenomenon, not uncommon in the realm of public discourse. Nevertheless, when delving into contentious issues like abortion, the impact of language becomes especially pronounced, carrying potential ramifications that extend far beyond mere verbal exchanges.
In the intricate landscape of abortion discourse, the power of a handful of words to shape public opinion, influence policies, and sway the course of societal debates cannot be overstated. The stakes are elevated, and the consequences are profound, as even subtle nuances in language can polarize communities, mobilize advocacy groups, and mould the trajectory of legal frameworks.
The gravity of the situation lies in the realization that rhetoric is not merely an instrument of communication but a potent force that shapes perspectives, instigates emotions, and ultimately determines the direction of public sentiment. In the context of abortion, where ethical, moral, and legal considerations intersect, the precision and responsibility with which words are chosen become paramount. The impact is not confined to the realm of political manoeuvring; it resonates deeply within the hearts and minds of individuals, potentially shaping the very fabric of societal values. Hence, it the imperative to scrutinize and critically assess the language employed in discussions surrounding abortion, recognizing its capacity to yield far-reaching consequences.
