A linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it.

[PeaceNikki]

A linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it.
Safe, legal, rare.

Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.

Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.

Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.

Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions. Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental
involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations.24 For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.

Using this phrase is a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights. The desire to help an individual woman achieve her reproductive desires by avoiding an abortion is a laudable goal, not because it reduces the need for abortion, but because it is what that woman wants for her life.


Credit for several portions of this to:

J Womens Hist. 2010;22(3):161-72.
Rethinking the mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
Weitz TA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857596

Worth every penny to buy the whole article, btw.

This is a retread of a post from several years ago. It was an interesting discussion then. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413

Hi everyone. I hope you are well. :wave:

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. THANK YOU. Safe. Legal. End of story.

[PeaceNikki]

2. Exactly.

thank you

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Safe, free, on demand.

[PeaceNikki]

4. .

[Solly Mack]

5. K&R

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. And what's so amazing is that most of the women

who seek abortions apparently got pregnant without any input from a male. At least there have been zero attempts at legislating the male responsibility.

[ancianita]

7. Here's the other linguistic trick: "We value your equality, women, BUT [insert injustice issue]"