Abortion may well be the most divisive issue in American politics. While parties can often find common ground on economic or international matters, the divide between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates is a vast chasm that has only grown deeper in the decades since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in all 50 states by judicial fiat. Debates on the subject often generate a great deal of heat but very little light. Indeed, the intensity of the arguments are inversely proportional to their persuasiveness to those on the other side.
That may be changing, as evidenced by Ruben Navarrette Jr., a political columnist writing for the Daily Beast. He is admitting his pro-choice stand of three decades has been shaken to the core by the release of several videos showing Planned Parenthood executives who, in Navarrette’s words, are “discussing, and even laughing about, the harvesting of baby organs, as casually as some folks talk about the weather.”
Despite a similar reaction from a significant segment of the American public, many abortion rights advocates refuse to address the troubling message of these videos and have decided that a more effective strategy is to attack the messengers. Navarrette reports having personal experience in that area. “These days, each time I express concern, outrage, disgust, or horror over another video — which should come with warnings that they may produce nightmares — some supporter of the organization responds by attacking me and insisting that I was never really pro-choice to begin with,” he wrote.
Yet such attacks have only increased Navarrette’s uncertainty on the issue. In his final paragraph, he noted: “For those of us who are pro-choice, the Planned Parenthood videos are a game-changer.”
That’s quite an admission, since the game has been virtually unchanged for over half a century. Those who oppose restrictions on abortion speak very frankly about the rights of women, yet they usually hide behind euphemism when discussing the messy details of what abortion actually is. Twenty years ago, columnist George Will called attention to Kate Michelman of NARAL’s description of partial-birth abortion as a process in which a “fetus undergoes demise.” Will asked, “Does Michelman say herbicides cause the crab grass in her lawn to ‘undergo demise?’ Such Orwellian language is a sure sign of squeamishness.”
Today, Planned Parenthood’s recorded departure from euphemisms in conversations about the sale of human body parts has amplified that squeamishness for a new generation. If there’s any good that has come out of this whole sorry affair, it may well be that justified moral outrage over despicable practices can no longer be deflected by ad hominem attacks or disguised by euphemisms. That’s a positive step toward bridging the chasm.