Every once in a while, an article in a pro-abortion publication will fill in details on developments that took place a long ago which can help pro-lifers understand the strategy of our benighted opposition, particularly Planned Parenthood.
I refer you to “Why Planned Parenthood Is Ditching The ‘Pro-Choice’ Label, According to Cecile Richards,” which appeared this week in a publication called Bustle.
Just to be clear–which the headline is not–Richards and her organization “ditched” the “pro-choice” label several years ago. In the interview with Chris Tognotti, Richards (PPFA’s CEO) goes into some detail why the pro-choice canard bit the dust, starting in 2013. Richards’ explanation is absolutely fascinating and hugely revealing.
Tognotti first paraphrases Richards to the effect that “Planned Parenthood has been evolving its expression of long-standing ideals on reproductive rights to suit the times, in part because of young peoples’ resistance to such black-and-white labels.”
“I think the language is completely outdated, and in fact, we found by talking to younger people that they are so against being labeled in any way,” Richards says. “And I think in some ways the ‘pro-choice versus pro-life’ labels miss the point here. Because abortion and pregnancy — these are deeply personal issues that most women will have to think about or deal with in their lifetime, and what the vast majority of people in this country believe is, women need to be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancy without the interference of politicians … [or] members of Congress who aren’t in their situation and can’t appreciate what they’re dealing with.”
Okay, I get that pro-choice is “outdated” and that younger people are not big on “labels,” but the rest of her quote is gobbledygook. “Pro-choice” was always outdated; it was intended to avoid discussing what the “choice” consisted of. In today’s world of 4-color ultrasounds and omnipresent image of unborn babies, it’s awfully difficult to talk about something as meaningless as “choice.”
SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation
Richards’ next response is even more illuminating–again not for she says but for what is tucked in between the gibberish;
“We really think it’s important that women have all their health care options, and that they have a trusted provider to talk to about those options,” Richards says. “And that’s why we’ve really quit using political labels that are really frankly very binary, in which most people don’t feel like they reflect how important and personal these decisions are.”
“Binary”? That was the whole premise of the “pro-choice” mantra. You were either pro-choice or a crazy pro-lifer.
But if you are Planned Parenthood and you read the same data points we do, you are fully aware that “pro-choice” has come to be (accurately) understood as pro-abortion for any reason or no reason, as late in pregnancy as a woman wants, and paid for with taxpayer dollars.
So in pitching “pro-choice” overboard, has Planned Parenthood trimmed its sails? Are you kidding? Of course not. PPFA is just as extreme, just out of the mainstream of public opinion on abortion as it has always been and always will be.
Tognotti concludes by telling us
Planned Parenthood decided to shift the language years ago because of how personal feelings surrounding pregnancy and abortion are and found that ditching the label was the best way to articulate those feelings. Obviously, your own decision of whether or not to employ the label of “pro-choice” is a matter of personal preference. But the most prominent women’s health care provider in the United States was open to adapting, all while still upholding its basic ideals.
Translation? Pro-choice’s shelf-life has long since expired. If even Planned Parenthood understands it is time to “ditch the label,” all pro-abortionists ought to get the message: they need new language to cloak, conceal and camouflage their radical agenda.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.
