Debunking the "Pro-Choice" Tag

The National Catholic Registry published an article explaining why using the term "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion" doesn't work. The article was written because of two letters the magazine received, one questioning their use of the phrase "pro-abortion" and the other questioning the "nominally" pro-life stance of Bobby Casey Jr.

In opinion polls, most Americans say they are against most abortions. But America’s voters are basically divided into three camps. The two smallest camps are the activists for whom abortion is the major issue – those who want to ban it on the one hand, or make it unrestricted on the other.

The rest are in the uncommitted camp. They aren’t always sure what they think of abortion, but they know they don’t like extremism. The trick for politicians is to signal to whichever activist camp they want on their side without looking too extreme for the uncommitted camp.

That’s how the terminology “pro-choice” came to be. “Pro-choice” is meant to suggest that a politician doesn’t really support abortion, but will leave the issue in the hands of mothers and abortionists. But this linguistic trick wouldn’t work on almost any other issue.

If a city councilman said he was “pro-choice” on whether or not people should be allowed to use fireworks when and where they please, it would be clear to all that he was “pro-fireworks.” Journalists would look into his relationship with the fireworks industry.

If a state senator was “pro-choice” as regards people’s right to do drugs in her state, she would be “for legalizing drugs.” If a U.S. senator were “pro-choice” when it came to immigrants staying or leaving, he would be called “for open borders.”

When it comes to abortion, a matter of life and death, using honest language is more important, not less. That’s why we use the term “pro-abortion.”

The article, which reaches a national audience, then focuses on our PA race for Senate. While both candidates claim to be "pro-life," only one has clearly risen to deserve the title: Rick Santorum. Bobby Casey may pro-life, but if so he has a funny way of showing it. He refuses to clearly answer questions about his stance on abortion, while supporting the rejection of pro-life justices. Most recently, he was endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Many questions remain – questions Casey has not adequately answered. Why does a pro-lifer want to block pro-life justices? Why did Casey headline a “bisexual and transgendered rights” event? Why did a Pennsylvania pro-lifer choose to run against pro-life Santorum instead of pro-abortion Specter? Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood oppose Casey? Why did abortion activist Kate Michelman decide not to run against Casey, and endorse him instead?

And so to answer the question of why Senator Santorum is the true "pro-lifer" of the two, the Register writes:

Because Rick Santorum has been the indispensable man in the Senate on pro-family issues throughout his tenure there. Without him, there would be no partial-birth abortion ban headed to the Supreme Court. He hasn’t simply been an ally, he’s been the Senate leader defending marriage, opposing embryonic stem cell research and cloning, and articulating all aspects of the abortion debate.

So we'll see, in the coming months, if Bobby ever takes a clear stance on this important issue.