Abortion activists are trying to hide the truth again with another change in the language they use to describe the killing of unborn babies.
This time, it’s the term “surgical abortion” that they do not like.
A recent article on the pro-abortion news site Rewire, “Notes on Language: Why We Stopped Using ‘Surgical Abortion’ at Rewire.News,” claims pro-lifers have “weaponized” the term to restrict abortions, especially during the coronavirus pandemic.
Author Regina Mahone, managing editor of the pro-abortion outlet, said they decided to stop using the term “surgical abortion” as part of “our ongoing efforts to reduce abortion stigma.”
“Instead of referring to ‘medication and surgical’ abortion to distinguish between abortions induced by pills and abortions performed as an in-clinic procedure, Rewire.News will use ‘medication and procedural’ abortion,” she wrote.
Mahone admitted that the term “surgical abortion” has been widely used by doctors and even abortion activists for many years. However, she argued that the change to “procedural abortion” is necessary for their cause.
“For pregnancies in the first trimester, which is when the vast majority of abortions occur, this involves a procedure called vacuum aspiration,” she wrote. “The word ‘surgical’ in this instance is misleading—the procedure doesn’t typically require cutting or suturing of any kind. It’s a five- to ten-minute process involving gentle suction to remove the products of conception from the uterus.”
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
What Mahone did not mention is that the “gentle suction” is approximately 10 to 20 times stronger than an average home vacuum cleaner and the “products of conception” are unique, living human beings. But, of course, that language adds to the “abortion stigma” that Rewire wants to avoid.
National Review’s Alexandra Desanctis explained the real purpose of the language change, writing, “What they call ‘reducing abortion stigma’ is in fact an effort to further obscure from public view, through the use of vague or euphemistic language, the truth of what takes place in an abortion procedure.”
It is nothing new. Abortion activists also have argued against using the terms partial-birth abortion, late-term abortion and unborn baby, choosing instead fetus or embryo or even “product of conception.” The terms that they oppose are ugly; they help expose the gruesome and inhumane nature of abortion.
A suction aspiration type of abortion is very common in the first trimester. The mother’s cervix is dilated so that a cannula, a hollow plastic tube, can be inserted into the uterus. It is connected to a vacuum pump. This vacuum suction is 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, as mentioned in the LifeNews article. And as Priests for Life mentions, ”[t]he abortionist runs the tip of the cannula along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube – either whole or in pieces.” The amniotic fluid, placenta and other body parts are then also sucked out and collected in a jar.
The most common second-trimester abortion procedure is dilation and evacuation, or a dismemberment abortion. In this method, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.
It’s no wonder the pro-abortion movement wants to change the language. The truth is too horrible to defend.