On Saturday, National Review ran an editorial in response to a closed-door Senate Republican meeting on the public interpretation of the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” We concluded that “surely no one would be so idiotic, so self-parodying an example of the consultant mentality, to propose that Republicans address their political challenges on abortion by replacing the term ‘pro-life’ with something else.”
I’m genuinely struggling to think what the “something else” would be.
Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) said that recent polling has revealed the need for specificity in discussing abortion, since “many voters think [‘pro-life’] means you’re for no exceptions in favor of abortion ever, ever, and ‘pro-choice’ now can mean any number of things.”
So, how about changing “pro-life” to “anti-abortion”? That would certainly increase specificity. But then, it isn’t very positive-sounding, nor does it connote exceptions.
Senator Todd Young (R., Ind.) said that the meeting’s focus was on “pro-baby policies.” On his use of “pro-baby,” he clarified that this “was just a term of my creation to demonstrate my concern for babies.”
Try changing “pro-life” to “pro-baby.” Wouldn’t abortion advocates then be well positioned to change “pro-choice” to “pro-woman,” and argue all the more effectively that opponents to abortion prioritize the interests of the unborn at the expense of pregnant women?
The problem isn’t the term “pro-life.” It’s the unwillingness, if not the inability, to give a coherent account of what it entails in policy and practice.