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

[PeaceNikki]

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.

[niyad]

1. k and r--thank you for posting

[PeaceNikki]

2. I had to explain why that phrase pisses me off so badly.

Thanks for reading.

[hooverville29]

34. Well it was rare enough in your family to allow you to be alive. That's good

Who knows. If it had been more common, maybe neither you nor I would be here musing about this.

[PeaceNikki]

36. ridiculous.

carry on.

[hooverville29]

37. Which response merely means you don't have an answer

[PeaceNikki]

39. answer? to what? you didn't ask a fucking question.

You made a ridiculous comment.

[PeaceNikki]

45. Yes. That's a fucking ridiculous point.

If I never were, I wouldn't *BE* to be sad I wasn't here!!

[hooverville29]

48. You're dodging around again. You're glad you're alive, right?

I didn't address you being 'sad' if you weren't. You don't have to answer, because it's pretty safe to assume you're happy to have had a chance to live. Life is a great gift. I'm happy to be enjoying it (and so are you). I'm glad someone didn't deny it to me (and so are you). Words like 'rare' and 'common' don't have real meaning in general. They have meaning in particular -- a real person making a real choice concerning a real life, whether viewed as already actual or merely potential.

That woman will make a choice that might lead others to say she thought abortion should be rare, or the opposite. I don't care what classification others use. I'm just glad of my mother's choice, and I'm happy for you that your mother made a similar choice. That's 'rare' enough to give me a shot at life, anyhow.

[PeaceNikki]

49. Making the dumb Reagan "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born"

argument.

[hooverville29]

50. :) Is that inaccurate?

[PeaceNikki]

51. It's ridiculous. Just like Reagan.

[MadrasT]

81. Oh for fuck's sake this argument is LUDICROUS.

If I had been aborted I would never haven been born and I wouldn't have the awareness to be upset about that.

I was the result of an unplanned pregnancy and if I had been aborted (never born) I wouldn't give a rat's ass because I wouldn't exist.

I am not "glad" I was not aborted. Life is not inherently good just because it happens. Life just "is".

[gollygee]

96. PPR'd as an anti-choice troll

Yay.

[Zorra]

99. Thank you, Skinner!

[HERVEPA]

57. Whoops. In wrong place.

[HERVEPA]

59. Hmmm. Exact same thing I hear from the antis while escorting at Planned Parenthood

[Oilwellian]

61. That's right, and...

the world could have possibly had one less asshole.

[chemp]

78. I use the phase all the time.

I have ALWAYS supported abortion rights. ALWAYS will.

My use of rare is through education. Teach our children to use birth control. Teach our children that self-respect means telling a boy without a condom that he ain't getting any. Teach our children that abstinence make the hormones grow fonder.

Education can reduce unwanted pregnancy.

Mishaps happen - either from faulty birth control, rape incest or other reasons.
Abortion should always be available, safe and on demand.

But education can easily teach how not to get pregnant.

[PeaceNikki]

79. to quote LeftyMom from another thread...

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

[Gman]

3. You are wrong

The "rare" term ties abortion rights to many other social issues that, if resolved would result in a women only choosing legal abortion on rare occasion because those other needs are met. Needs such as affordable and adequate housing, living wages, child care and other basic needs that are often not met today often forcing a woman to choose abortion. The "rare" term ties these things together. Yes I know those aren't the only reasons but it's a "carrot" to the independents on the issue. If they want to reduce abortions then they should support these issues.

[PeaceNikki]

4. It's a MEDICAL issue not a social issue.

How far could the US reduce the number of abortions and would that meet the threshold for "rare"?

The answer to this question employs the standard set by the NIH Office of Rare Diseases Research which defines a rare disease as one having a prevalence of fewer than 200,000 affected individuals in the United States. Currently there are 1.2 million abortions per year in the United States. Thus the number of abortions would need to decline by 83 percent to meet this threshold. Such a reduction is both unrealistic at a practical level and impossible with current conceptive options. All contraceptive methods have failures—both due to the method themselves and due to user errors. Currently 54 percent of all abortions happen to women using birth control. For the purposes of this argument let us assume that all women used contraception perfectly over the course of their sexual lives when not trying to get pregnant and used the method with the very lowest failure rate, the intrauterine contraception or IUC. With 61 million women of reproductive age and a desire for an average of two children per woman, the number of unintended pregnancies would still be greater than 200,000 per year.

The Netherlands provides an example of what might be more realistic and possible. With one of the lowest abortion rates in the world at 8.4 per 1,000 women, there are still over 34,000 abortions per year—not meeting the incidence rate for “rare” given the population of only 16 million. While held up as a model for family planning and sexuality education, abortion happens routinely in the Netherlands. And U.S.-based pro-life groups remain loudly opposed to abortion in Netherlands.

So.. yeah, we should drop the "rare" bullshit.

[Gman]

7. Of course it's medical

But the issue is social. There's no denying that and it's tied to many other social issues.

[PeaceNikki]

6. Also, your reply doesn't prove me "wrong" it only states it's ok, because... independents?

Not buying it.

ETA: The Democratic Party dropped the "safe, legal, rare" language from the platform in 2008 for all of these reasons. Get with the program.

[Ohio Joe]

5. Good stuff - K&R - nt

[Whisp]

8. Let's make poverty and all the many other inequities rare first. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

9. That's not how most people see it. Not even most DUers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023976002




http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023995744


The fact is, "safe, legal and rare" is an overwhelmingly popular approach to the issue, and it is highly likely that we will all be pulling the lever in November 2016 for somebody who views the issue precisely on those terms.

I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare. And I have spent many years now, as a private citizen, as first lady, and now as senator, trying to make it rare, trying to create the conditions where women had other choices.
I have supported adoption, foster care. I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy, which fulfilled our original goal 10 years ago of reducing teenage pregnancies by about a third. And I am committed to do even more.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cabinet/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm

[PeaceNikki]

10. Which is why I feel the need to explain how and why it's harmful.

And counterproductive to supporting reproductive freedom.

Also it was pulled from the party platform in 2008.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Argument ad populum, but you don't care.

[PeaceNikki]

13. These are the popular beliefs because they've been pushed on us.

Liberals have never won anything by reframing moral questions as pragmatic ones; they end up looking shifty and evasive. Whatever else it has been doing, the Supreme Court has always framed its decisions about the legality of abortion in moral terms. The decision in Roe to protect women's reproductive choices grew out of earlier cases protecting ordinary means of birth control as a matter of "privacy." It was only over the course of its long philosophical evolution on abortion that the court silently changed the meaning of privacy from the morally neutral secrecy to autonomy, a moral claim for the individual's right to shape her own life.

[Nye Bevan]

16. So unlike you, 80% of DUers are unable to think for themselves,

and only believe in "safe, legal and rare" because that has been "pushed on them".

Your problem is that even if you were somehow able to persuade Hillary to drop "rare", that would drive so many voters away from her that the election could swing to the Republican. Which given the number of elderly SCOTUS justices could easily end up jeopardizing Roe v Wade. But of course Hillary (and probably any other Democratic candidate) is way, way too smart to ever fall into this trap. Just imagine the shitstorm during a presidential debate if the Democratic candidate said something like "No Jim, I refuse to say that abortion should be rare, and here's why".

[PeaceNikki]

17. This isn't about Clinton or specific politicians. It's about the general conversation of

reproductive rights and why we should change the words we use to remove the stigma. The national party did, we here at DU can as well. I had a wonderful, productive, adult conversation just today here where someone said they hadn't thought about it like that and see the point. This is a discussion board, it's cool to have discussions sometimes.

[WCLinolVir]

40. Thanks Hillary. For pandering. Yeah we should just all have that baby and give it up for adoption.

Why is it these people rarely address the potential complications of pregnancy. Stop promoting adoption unless you also want to point out that there are major health risks associated with term pregnancy and spontaneous miscarriage. Not to mention the psychological risks.
I think there is definitely a judgment call when you feel the need to tell people that abortion should be rare. And yes, there are risks with abortion.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. Abortion is a medical issue, and should be no more controversial than any other medical issue...

the frequency of them shouldn't be a concern.

[scheming daemons]

25. Sure it should. Costly and more physically traumatic procedures should be less frequent

Than their cheaper and less physically traumatic alternatives.


Better diets would reduce the number of bypass surgeries. Bypass surgeries should be rare.


Better and cheaper birth control would reduce the number of abortions.



All surgeries... And abortion is a surgery..... Should be as rare as we can make them.

[Laffy Kat]

80. A full-term pregnancy and childbirth are both more likely to cause complications than an abortion.

Oh, also, childbirth is also more expensive than an abortion. And childbirth is not a surgery UNLESS it becomes a c-section which is very possible these days. Gee, which is more "traumatic" a c-section or an abortion? I don't get your argument at all.

[OnionPatch]

121. Thanks for making this point.

When I say they should be rare, it's for this reason. Most woman would not have to go through an abortion if they had access to good birth control. And yes, abortion is somewhat traumatic for most women even if some people think it should not be.

[Egalitarian Thug]

14. K&R&Thank you.

Language forms thoughts and behavior, and the effectiveness of it's manipulation cannot be overstated.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. "Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be"

Wrong.

It means people should avoid pregnancy unless they want a child.

IOW: Birth Control.

[PeaceNikki]

18. How far could the US reduce the number of abortions and would that meet the threshold for "rare"?

see above...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

33. You ask the wrong question.

[zeemike]

19. Well the opposite of rare is common.

And I don't think any politician would want to run on a platform of abortion being safe, legal and common.

[WCLinolVir]

47. Maybe they should not run on a platform about abortion.

What if they ran on a platform about lap-band surgery? Please tell me that there would not be a hue and cry from people claiming discrimination. How about plastic surgery. Let's reduce the incidents of breast augmentation, a surgery that has had a lot of controversy.

[zeemike]

54. Well that would be great if we set the agenda.

But I don't think that the GOP would go for it...
They will make an issue out of it, and if we don't respond they win.
But if you have a way to stop them I am all ears.

[scheming daemons]

20. i want effective and available birth control to make it rare

Sue me.

[PeaceNikki]

21. How far could the US reduce the number of abortions and would that meet the threshold for "rare"?

see above...

[scheming daemons]

24. I want all medical procedures as rare as possible

Effective and free birth control

Morning after pill


Whatever lowers the cost, and physical trauma, to the person going through it and to society as a whole.


Will this get rid of all abortions? Of course not. It should always be there and available when needed... It should be covered by insurance.... And it should be safe.

[PeaceNikki]

35. Do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful?

The widespread endorsement of “rare” in context of abortion both produces and reproduces stigma. A recent review of mental health and abortion found profound psychological implications of stigma. According to experimental studies stigmatization can create negative cognitions, emotions, and behavioral reactions that can adversely affect social, psychological, and biological functioning. Societal stigma is seen as particularly pernicious because it leads to internalized stigma in which women adopt the negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about themselves.

I get your premise and, frankly every one of us feels that way. I certainly do not doubt your support of reproductive rights. I don't. And, maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this. And, if it were coupled with massive sweeping restrictions on other medical procedures and attacks from the religious right, I could buy into that theory. For now, we ALL know there have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa.

[scheming daemons]

38. If I said I want mastectomies safe and rare, that wouldn't be controversial

It would mean I want breast cancer cured earlier and with less traumatic means.

[PeaceNikki]

41. i. get. that. But you don't say that. And legislators are not trying to defund Oncology Depts.

And right wingers are not trying to stop women from having them.

It's different.

I guess you don't see it.

meh. I'll move on.

[scheming daemons]

44. Right wingers are wrong and should be defeated on this.

We are on the same side.... Not sure what else to say.

[PeaceNikki]

46. how about... not 'rare'?

the end.

[dionysus]

91. +100

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Birth control is a medical procedure.

[scheming daemons]

75. birth control is preventative medicine

[Warren Stupidity]

83. um uh I'm sure you find that to be a distinction, but it is one without a difference.

Abortion is "preventative medicine". It prevents a pregnancy coming to term.

However I suppose you also support making access to morning after pills "rare".

[scheming daemons]

106. exact opposite. access to morning after pills should be free

.

[Warren Stupidity]

108. Why? They are abortifacients, shouldn't they be rare too?

Seems massively inconsistent to me, why should an abortion induced by a doctor be rare, but not an abortion induced by a pill?

[scheming daemons]

109. Response

Abortions are surgical procedures. They are physically traumatic and expensive... Prohibitively so for poor women.

Morning after pills are cheap, non invasive, and non surgical.

It would always be preferable to use a morning after pill as opposed to an abortion.



Primarily, the cheapest and easiest thing is to prevent the conception with effective birth control. If that fails, a morning after pill is the next cheapest and easiest solution. If that fails, then abortion should be readily available and covered by insurance.


Rare means infrequent. It means nothing more than that. Quit trying to drive a wedge between pro choice folks. We are on the same team.


I want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I want birth control to succeed 100% of the time.

When it doesn't... All other options should be available as needed with no limitations.... But being rare is not a negative goal.

[Warren Stupidity]

119. Abortions are "physically traumatic" and "prohibitively expensive".

Interesting. I didn't know that a simple aspiration, at a cost of around $300, was physically traumatic. I've never had one myself, but I've talked to several women who have, and none of them found it physically traumatic. It does have some risk, but pregnancy itself is massively more risky. As far as the cost goes, yes it really sucks that the rightwing motherfuckers and their centrist Democratic enablers removed funding for abortions from medicaid. Too bad that triangulating corporatist Clinton signed off on the Hyde Amendment.

I can't help drawing the conclusion that you view abortions as "bad". I view them as nobody's business.

[scheming daemons]

120. youre wrong

I don't view abortions as bad.

Full term pregnancies are much riskier than abortion, agreed. But abortions are riskier than morning after pills, and morning after pills are riskier than most birth control methods.

If you think $300 isn't a hardship for poor women, then you've never been poor.

Wouldn't it be easier, physically and cost wise, for a woman to terminate a pregnancy via a morning after pill than via an aspiration? Of course it would. And wouldn't it be less expensive still if the conception were prevented in the first place?

You're right... abortion is nobody's business but the woman's and the people she cares about. But as a society, we all benefit when unwanted pregnancies themselves occur less often.

Again... we are on the same side, and you are inexplicably trying to drive a wedge between yourself and others who are also pro choice. Why?

[PeaceNikki]

122. Look, I can't speak for the person you responded to, but I can to the OP.

My intent was never to 'drive a wedge', 'be the word police', or 'be divisive'.

I wanted to discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.

*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.

Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.



Carry on.

[boston bean]

123. Abortions occur when there is a pregnancy, not before.

Unwanted pregnancies happen for all sort of reasons and women choose to have abortions for all sorts of reason.

There is no way possible the need for it can be made "rare". Most women are practicing contraception prior to becoming pregnant. Rare means hardly ever needed. Why the qualifier?

This rare framing allows people who find it morally objectionable to find a way to feel comfortable with a woman having choice.

It's traumatic on the woman, they should have been using contraception..... it's this it's that. Mostly, people putting their own personal judgments on other women. This.does.not.help.

It's a medical procedure that women deserve access to any god damn time they want (within the existing laws) for whatever reason they choose.

I just say none of nobodies danged business and leave it at that. People really need to keep their nose out of this.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Why? Do you think there is something wrong with having an abortion?

[Solly Mack]

22. K&R

[Starry Messenger]

23. k&r

[liberal_at_heart]

26. trashing thread.

[PeaceNikki]

27. ok....

see ya!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. aren't you heartbroken?

[REP]

31. Understandable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3657306

[Agschmid]

112. Post stalk much? That was from September?

[passiveporcupine]

28. I wish abortion was rare

but not for the reasons a religious person might choose. I don't like the risk associates with it and think that not getting pregnant is a safer option.

However, I know it will never be "rare" because sex happens (thankfully) and accidents happen.

Now I also believe that mastectomies should be rare, not because they have a social stigma, but because it is a traumatic way to treat a disease that I wish was rare. My mom had a mastectomy, and I know it has left more than just physical scars. But...until we find a cure for breast cancer that stops it before it requires a mastectomy, I will hope they are always legal.

Same thing with abortion. It's a risky procedure that should not be required, but until we make birth control fail safe and no unwanted (for whatever reason) pregnancies occur, I will fight to see it remains legal.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. and everyone knows this. this spate of excuses as to why this is not shaming women

is just that. excuses.

[nomorenomore08]

32. And so many people don't even realize they're doing it. Undermining a cause they purportedly support

[PeaceNikki]

42. Exactly. That's why I discuss with liberals who say this whenever I can.

[kestrel91316]

52. Well, the opposite of rare is frequent.

So I'm not apologizing, AS A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN PRO-CHOICE SINCE MANY OF YOU WERE BORN, for having used the phrase "safe, legal, and rare" on many occasions.

The people harping about this are trying to divide the pro-choice camp against itself and you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

[boston bean]

56. I think the division comes in using the term.

Read through the threads. Quite obviously rare doesn't mean to quite a few, what it means to you.

[PeaceNikki]

58. Oh, that's bullshit.

I am 'harping' because I feel passionately about it I don't give a shit how old or how much you have or think you have supported abortion rights. The language is harmful.

Do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful?

The widespread endorsement of “rare” in context of abortion both produces and reproduces stigma. A recent review of mental health and abortion found profound psychological implications of stigma. According to experimental studies stigmatization can create negative cognitions, emotions, and behavioral reactions that can adversely affect social, psychological, and biological functioning. Societal stigma is seen as particularly pernicious because it leads to internalized stigma in which women adopt the negative societal beliefs and stereotypes about themselves.

Maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this. And, if it were coupled with massive sweeping restrictions on other medical procedures and attacks from the religious right, I could buy into that theory. For now, we ALL know there have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa.

If you cannot see that and refuse to discuss it, move along. The next generation is here to take back our rights we've been losing since 1989 while you've been coddling the right with your 'rare' mantra.

[Oilwellian]

65. +1

K&R

[passiveporcupine]

71. I agree with you

In this context.

The widespread endorsement of “rare” in context of abortion both produces and reproduces stigma.

Yes, I can see pro-lifers jumping on it as a means to end abortions, because that is what they want to do. But that doesn't mean everyone who is pro-choice means it that way.

But when someone posts a thread poll asking about how you view abortions, and one option is that you would like abortions to be available to all, but rare..., it's not fair to say people choosing that option are promoting the stigma of abortions, when that is not what they personally meant when they chose that option.

The sad part is in today's social framing, there is always a stigma attached to the word abortion, even for those who have to have a life-saving abortion. And the pro-life group being what they are, I also am discouraged that we have to carefully choose our words or they may be misconstrued even by people who we agree with.

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that I understand why you don't like that term used, but perhaps not everyone should be judged for using it, when they basically feel the same way as you about the right to an abortion. You are attempting to demonize people over a word. Wouldn't it be better just to educate them on why you think maybe that is a poor choice in phrasing, and then let them "choose" to use it or not? I suspect they will at least think about it in future discussions and perhaps choose not to use it.

[uppityperson]

101. The opposite of rare is not rare, or common. Not "frequent".

[boston bean]

53. You know what I am noticing in this thread and mine.

There's quite a few people on DU who only approve a woman's right to choose based on some personal moral judgement they themselves hold. That's not choice folks.

Not all, I am not saying that. But quite a few.

[PeaceNikki]

55. Agreed. It's patronizing, "I'll let it slide" bullshit.

[boston bean]

60. And they use the "rare" talking point which confuses people.

The term is loaded, it's used to muddy the waters in discussions. Now, if I can tell a person is pro choice I usually let it slide. But there's quite a few who use it to spout anti choice arguments.

That's why I stopped using it. It's not that I can't understand how some are using it. Like wanting increased access to contraception, etc. but the person still believes in choice. But the I want abortion rare because it makes one feel bad and regretful, I reject outright. That is anti choice making it's way into the conversation.

So, to be more clear and to not shame woman, I have ceased using the term.

[passiveporcupine]

72. You said

"So, to be more clear and to not shame woman, I have ceased using the term."

And for this reason (and thank you for your understanding) I will also cease to use this term.

[Yo_Mama]

62. I adamantly disagree

Many women are forced into abortion from factors such as not being able to afford the child, not being able to afford the medical costs, and some, unfortunately, because they can't afford to take off work.

Being pro-choice means being REALLY IN FAVOR OF CHOICE. Free choice, not forced choice. There are human rights issues associated with abortion as a solution to the problem of too many poor people, you know?

Now there are people who may be doing what you said, but there are many other people who are fighting across the spectrum for human rights, and who are also reading nasty commentary from various sources about how men shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't want the baby, because the woman has the right to an abortion, and about how we shouldn't extend various social benefits to women who have children they can't support, because, you know, they can just have an abortion.

Forced abortions or coerced abortions are a denial of choice, not an affirmation of it.

[boston bean]

66. None of that has to do with what should be un prohibited access to abortion if one

so chooses.

All I see with your argument is more judgments. Once you start saying abortion should be rare you are playing into the hands of anti choicers. What you mean to say is you want to see more support in the form of contraception and aid to poor mothers etc.

But what you are doing is implying there is something wrong with abortion.

I happen to agree with you, but your framing is harmful. That is the disagreement. Poor mothers may want an abortion for none of the reasons you state. That is why it's no ones business.

[Yo_Mama]

70. I would never use the term safe, legal and rare

but as a political campaign slogan to support the right to abortion, it's a winner. I recognize that.

Almost no one can argue with that position, and it logically implies local access is necessary. This is the political reality that comes up so much in polls of younger people's attitudes.
http://feministing.com/2011/06/14/new-study-on-young-peoples-views-on-abortion/

If, politically speaking, you ask people to make a decision on the morality of abortion, there is less support. But if you ask if it should be safe and legal, there is very strong support, and if it is framed that way, people do support laws that create better access.

I think if women truly have the option they will make the right decision for themselves. The problem is having the option.

[PeaceNikki]

68. Like BB stated- it's the framing of the discussion that's the problem. Words mean things.

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence.

What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions.

Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not. the. point.

[99Forever]

63. I simply don't agree.

Save the browbeating for someone else, you aren't in charge my thought process and i feel zero compunction to explain why I think you are wrong.

[PeaceNikki]

64. fanfuckingtastic

thanks for offering nothing

[99Forever]

67. Makes us precisely even.

fanfuckingtastic

Now run along, there must be somebody somewhere saying something that offends you. Sic' em, Word Police.

[boston bean]

69. You seem to have a problem with one who is voicing an opinion.

Bitter too. Talk about "word police".

[dembotoz]

76. always thought the rare thing was bs and just one reason why i trust hilary as far as i can throw

her.

abortions should be safe and legal
period

[alphafemale]

77. Increasing access to sexual protection against unwanted pregnancy and STD's is the key

That would help make abortion rare.

Abortion is the most invasive and risky form of birth control and also leaving a woman open to every damn STD there is.

Honest sex education and availability of contraception would be ideal.

Yes I would want abortion to be rare. I would rather unwanted pregnancies were rare.

[MadrasT]

82. I am in complete agreement.

Been thinking about this a lot lately and the word "rare" needs to be jettisoned in abortion discussions. I had been thinking it was OK to use it because why should anyone have to go through a medical procedure that could have been avoided? But, the word is too loaded with moral judgement.

Safe, legal, and esay to obtain. Period.

[thesquanderer]

84. Of course it should be rare.

Nobody likes having an abortion. With better education and better access to contraceptives, they would be less necessary. I don't think that is an unworthwhile goal.

[arely staircase]

85. I honestly understand the thesis, however I can't get past the fact that that is a phrase I associat

with Ann Richards. Heard her say it hundreds of times.

[ScreamingMeemie]

86. I am against abortion for myself.

That's where my involvement in abortion should end.

And, in my opinion, it already is rare. This is the fight we have been fighting against the jerkwads down here in Texas who took away healthcare from low income women.

[Zorra]

87. Recommend. nt

[KittyWampus]

88. Insistence on trying to make others convert to your extreme view is an hallmark of an ideologue.

I want all medical procedures that can potentially be avoided to be as rare as possible.

Pretending abortion is like trying on shoes is screwed up.

[PeaceNikki]

89. Extreme? The Democratic National Party stopped using it

because of the reasons listed. I have "insisted" nothing. We're discussing.

What's screwed up is refusing to see how language can be harmful. Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families.

[dionysus]

90. i don't know about that. abortion is a serious surgery and can be dangerous. if readily available

birth control or the morning after pill can prevent one, i'd say it's a plus.

[PeaceNikki]

92. you missed the point

It's not about criticizing the idea that unplanned pregnancies should be rare. It's about the framing of the issue.

[dionysus]

93. i didn't miss the point. we just interpret the phase differently, i suppose.

[PeaceNikki]

94. I encourage you to open your mind and see the ways it can be harmful is all

At least a few people have genuinely said they hadn't thought about it that way and would change their language. Others have been combative. reproductive choice is very important to me and under massive attack. Thanks for at least not getting shitty.

[dionysus]

95. i have no reason to quarrel!

[LeftyMom]

111. Abortion is not "serious surgery" it's a very safe minor outpatient procedure.

[D23MIURG23]

97. I don't see why having a pro-choice stance necessarily entails...

affirming that both choices are equally good in all cases.

"Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions."

No. Safe, legal, rarer would indicate that abortion is happening more than it should be. The word rare a general description, and not a comparison to anything that has been defined. The speaker could be indicating that the incidence of abortion is already rare enough if we are judging the statement in isolation. Furthermore, nothing about that statement indicates anything about 'good' or 'bad' abortions.

Abortions are invasive medical procedures, and therefore all abortions are bad. Having an invasive medical procedure always carries a non-zero risk, and some amount of suffering, and should be prevented whenever possible. I happen to think that cardiac bypass surgery should be "safe, legal, and rare" for exactly the same reason. Obviously you shouldn't be denied a medical procedure you need, or one that you have elected, in order to spare yourself a greater hardship. That doesn't mean that if the right wingers start arguing against open heart surgery on biblical grounds, that we have to counter by arguing that there is nothing negative or dangerous about having ones' chest cavity opened on an operating table. We would be better off insisting that such procedures should happen when they need to happen, and that in cases where they can be prevented by lifestyles that involve healthy eating and exercise, they should be.

It may well be that the public perception of abortion as a negative thing helps the forced birth people, but it doesn't follow that we have to address that by ignoring what abortion actually is. We can just as easily raise awareness of the fact that abortion sometimes saves the lives of women who are having complications in their pregnancies, and re-emphasize the fact that abortion is an issue for doctors and their patients to hash out, without the meddling of congress.

[PeaceNikki]

98. First, abortion is not bad. Anymore than cardiac bypass is "bad".

Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families.

Maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this. And, if it were coupled with massive sweeping restrictions on other medical procedures and attacks from the religious right, I could buy into that theory. For now, we ALL know there have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa.

The national party stopped using the antiquated language several years ago and a lot of Democrats have been slow to follow. If you don't agree... meh on you.

I guess after reading some of the replies, the point of the harm it causes is missed on the soft pro-choicers.

[D23MIURG23]

107. I'm not "soft pro-choice" at all.

I advocate for abortion to be legal until birth, full stop, no exceptions. I'm against criticizing language on the basis of a bunch of appeals to consequences. We ought to speak about abortion in a way that is realistic, rather than trying to play a bunch of word games that someone in a woman's history department thinks will have a desired effect. That's an issue of how to talk about abortion, not about whether they should be legal.

"Maybe you go around using the term "rare" in context of other medical issues, but society certainly doesn't. Not like this."

That's totally irrelevant. The point is that its completely valid to use the word rare in that context, and its completely reasonable to argue that abortion should be prevented when possible. Nothing about that stance requires giving up ground on the basic question of whether a fetus should be given the same status as a human adult.

"Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families."

Right, which is why I hear so many stories from people who have had one about what an easy decision it was, and how good it made them feel in the aftermath. Kind of like this woman:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-totally-psyched-about-this-abortion,10931/

[uppityperson]

100. k&r with thanks for continuing to work to keep the right to a legal medical abortion accessible.

[PeaceNikki]

102. In conclusion: back off with the 'soft support'. If you don't fully support abortion rights, STFU.

[Pathwalker]

103. Thanks for this OP, PeaceNikki. It shows how DU has changed,

-and not for the better. Du didn't use to be so anti-choice. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your OP.

[PeaceNikki]

104. Thank you for your support. It's been... eyeopening.

[Major Hogwash]

105. Great OP, I totally agree with the premise the author is writing about.

I think that it first started in the 1980s, back when Reagan was President, when the phrase "abortion as a means of birth control" was used so often and then became the mantra used by the rightwing GOP fundamentalists as a way to frame the argument against allowing abortions of any kind under any circumstances.

[PeaceNikki]

110. thank you for getting it

I had to reread your reply to center myself after a bad experience in another thread.

[pnwmom]

113. I disagree that this is "devaluing" the right.

I think abortions should be rare in the same sense that getting a tooth pulled should be rare. And that access to good dental care to avoid tooth pulling should be available -- and it isn't, for many people.

[PeaceNikki]

114. the national party platform was updated to remove the stigma. sad that DU is lagging so far behind.

[phleshdef]

115. No. "Rare" means that we should have a society that encourages preventing unplanned pregnancies.

It means easy access to all the various forms of birth control
It means thorough sexual education

Abortions can be a costly and invasive procedure. OF COURSE we want that to be rare. We should encourage to people pro-actively take control of their sex lives by taking measures to assure they don't end up creating a pregnancy when they didn't want to. Theres nothing undemocratic or unliberal about that notion whatsoever.

[PeaceNikki]

116. so... you want unwanted pregnancies to be rare? hey, me, too!!

We should clarify that. Oh, wait ... The national party platform already did in 2008. Too bad DU is so far behind.

[phleshdef]

117. I really have no idea where you are coming from.

[PeaceNikki]

118. Wisconsin. You?

Honestly, if after reading this OP and my responses in it, you're still lost... Just move on.

[Ineeda]

124. 100% agree.

I believe in -- oh, horrors!!!! -- "abortion on demand." (Yet another shaming tactic.) If a woman wants an abortion, for ANY reason, no matter how offended or dismissive some would be about that reason, it's her choice. Only hers. And how 'rare' is rare anyway? If a woman has 12 fertile cycles a year and is fertile from age about 13 to 50-ish, that's a pretty big number of potential unwanted pregnancies. So how many should she be allowed? One a year? One a decade? I had three - one illegal, and terrifying. But only because it was illegal and I'd heard the horror stories. I had not one moment of regret, remorse, sadness, or emotional trauma for any of them. No physical trauma or discomfort, either. Only gratitude and relief.
AND my employer-provided insurance covered the two I submitted. I was ready to fight, as it was a legal medical procedure, but I ever heard a peep from them. As it should be.

[Lars39]

125. With my trusty calculator...

Say from age 11 to 52=504.

504 times that you must do things perfectly, whether your body cooperates or not, lest you have to jump thru those damn rare hoops.

[applegrove]

126. When the clintons called for safe, legal and rare abortions

they calmed the far right who were told that democrats wanted as many abortions as possible. We should keep that mantra. Part of me wonders if this kick to get rid of the word "rare" is not a GOP tactic. What women need is access to contraceptives and health. That way abortions will be rarer and that is a good thing. Abortion is a trauma to the mother too. Why not try to make them as rare as possible.

[PeaceNikki]

127. sigh. really? a gop tactic? "this kick"?

ugh....

you know that the language was removed from the democratic party platform, right? we've won the white house twice with the language removed from it.

Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.


See? It's possible to support all of the things we discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

It's not that controversial outside of DU in pro-choice/democratic circles.