How media mistakes fueled the high court abortion ruling
The federal abortion ban is the result of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.
Randall Terry said that "[The] partial birth abortion ban is a political scam but [also] a public relations gold mine…. The major benefit is the debate that surrounds it."
So said the founder of Operation Rescue, a militant anti-choice group that blockaded abortion providers, in 2003.
The Apr. 18 US Supreme Court decision (Gonzales v. Carhart) upholding the federal abortion ban is the fruition of that pubic relations gold mine. It is a travesty of language bought and repeated endlessly by journalists who were sometimes uninformed and sometimes just too lazy to get it right.
Indeed, the travesty of language around abortion is so pervasive that even Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's majority, in addition to using the inaccurate term "partial-birth abortion," also referred to the "abortion doctor" repeatedly in the ruling. Why did he not simply refer to doctors as "doctors" or "OB-GYNs"? If another surgical procedure were under scrutiny, would he have he referred to "tonsillectomy doctor" or "hysterectomy doctor"? Of course not. But those who want to take away entirely a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions have used the term "abortion doctor" for so long as an epithet that they have succeeded in getting even the highest court in the land to adopt their language.
Such bias is just the tip of the iceberg in the battle over what losing plaintiff Dr. Leroy Carhart has called "partial-truth abortion." There is no such thing as partial-birth abortion. The term will be found in no medical book. It was coined in 1995 by Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right-to-Life Committee, and former Congressional representative and current Florida appeals court judge Charles Canady explicitly to confuse, horrify and deceive–to manipulate language with the intent of sensationalizing the abortion debate. In particular, they intended to take the focus away from the woman in order to place the greater value on the fetus. Leading medical associations all agreed it was a misleading term, but the media never checked their language and by 2001, 90 percent of articles were using the term without so much as a "so-called" attached. As I reported in my 2004 book The War on Choice, an Associated Press managing editor admitted when challenged that "partial-birth abortion" was emotionally loaded, but said they continued to use it because it was instantly recognizable. Another major daily newspaper editor admitted it wasn't correct but said it was easier to use than alternatives.
An almost identical abortion ban was found unconstitutional by a different Supreme Court in 2000.
Elections have consequences. Since then, President Bush has had the opportunity to appoint two new justices who are ideologically in synch with the biased language. That shift made all the difference to women today and tomorrow.
Now we have a landmark Supreme Court decision, built upon the counterfeit foundation of a made-up term that the media accepted and used uncritically.