Hi, hi. The last four weeks at work for me have been heavily focused on stories related to reproductive rights.
I thought I’d start this by sharing a bit about how newsrooms are struggling a bit in this moment to find the best language to use. Basically, for decades newsrooms used the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” when reporting on battles over abortion, as that’s what the activists called themselves. These are still labels the public largely recognizes too, of course. But a shift started happening really in the mid 2010s, and especially in the last five years, where a lot of newsrooms changed their copy-desk rules (in the biz it’s called “House Style”). In an effort to be a) more specific and clear b) less euphemistic and c) less stigmatizing there has been something of an industry-wide move away from these aforementioned terms.
“The pro-life movement” is more commonly referred to now as “the anti-abortion movement” (to be more specific, clear and less euphemistic) and “the pro-choice movement” is now commonly referred to as “the abortion rights movement” (to be more specific, clear, and to push back on abortion stigma)
“Reproductive rights” used to also be a very common phrase, but there was something of a move away from it too — in both activism communities and in newsrooms — largely for these same reasons, a sense that it wasn’t quite specific enough to capture the very targeted attacks on abortion per se that were happening, and a sense that it too was being used as a euphemism for abortion, which still remains stigmatized even among many who are ostensibly supportive of abortion rights.
Anyway, over the last month as I’ve been covering things like the fetal personhood movement (the wing of the anti-abortion movement that wants to endow gametes/embryos with constitutional + human rights), attacks on IVF, and attacks on birth control, I’ve been feeling the real limits of “the anti-abortion movement” as a label, which feels to me both not specific/clear enough to describe the extent of their long-term objectives, and in some instances even doing their political work for them, by helping to conflate some of their opposition to things like contraception and IVF with abortion.
I grew so frustrated by this problem over the last month I asked for a meeting with both my editor and our copy-desk editor to talk through it, and brainstorm alternatives. We agreed for now to take sentences on a case-by-case basis. There are definitely now some instances where opponents of reproductive rights feels like the more specific/clear term to be using. I don’t think the public yet really knows the fetal personhood movement, and I want to write in comprehensible language, but as the phrase gets more mainstreamed, then fetal personhood activists may come to be more appropriate, but there’s something also unsatisfyingly unclear/ euphemistic about that to me, too. Other terms I’ve used over the last month have included, “certain Christian activists” (to refer to those in the movement committed to life-at-conception rights) and “extremist wing of the anti-abortion movement” (for the same reason) These all have strengths and weaknesses. It also gets tough when a movement’s leaders are themselves the extremists, even if you know they may not accurately represent the views/positions of people they purport to lead.
Curious if any readers here have thoughts on this. This is an evolving conversation and I welcome your feedback here.
On that note — I have several pieces to share, and one more in-depth piece on IVF coming soon. I’ll be turning back to some other topics next month (housing, child care) so please do continue to reach out with any and all ideas. Thank you to those who have sent me interesting leads over the last few weeks, much much appreciated.
It can be hard to comprehend why the anti-abortion movement would seek to restrict access to birth control, one of the most reliable ways we have to reduce incidence of abortion. But it comes down to sex.
I wrote about how these attacks are playing out now, which has been coming largely by conflating abortion with birth control, as well as fomenting fear/distrust of effective contraception methods. This one I think is really important to read, and one where the questions around language were particularly acute for me.
2. This ballot measure would restore Roe. Abortion rights groups are attacking it.
I wrote about the fight in South Dakota for an abortion rights ballot measure. It’s facing major pushback from the right but also some on the left—like the ACLU + Planned Parenthood. This one explores a lot of frankly frustrating dynamics playing out on the pro-choice side of the aisle.
3. Why abortion politics might not carry Democrats again in 2024
Abortion played a major role in the midterms and special elections over the last two years, but presidential elections are different. I talked with a lot of pollsters to understand what we know about "less engaged" voters and abortion rights, and why things might be different this year.
4. Why abortion in the US is on the rise
New data was published this week showing there were more abortions in the U.S. in 2023 than in a decade. I wrote about what we know that’s driving this shift, and how to square it with all the new attacks on abortion rights we’ve seen since Roe.
In some other news:
MSNBC host Chris Hayes featured some of my abortion rights reporting from last spring on his show recently. It was a really nice surprise! Can watch that clip here.
I spoke on a neat panel last night about my motherhood dread essay. It was recorded and will be a podcast episode soon — I’ll share it when it’s live.
Thanks so much for reading,