3 Comments
May 11, 2022·edited May 11, 2022

I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, and I hope it’s not interpreted as a provocation. But I think it’s time for the legacy rhetoric “pro-choice” to be retired.

On the substance of policy, legal abortion access polls very high: 70-80% favorables. Consistently over decades. The hardline position on abortion never gets as high as 30%. But the language of identity that surrounds the two issues looks very different. Policy attitudes notwithstanding, identification with the term “pro-choice” lags badly, and perpetually fights to maintain a bare majority. Conversely, “pro-life” identification vastly outperforms the actual hardline position on abortion access. To me, this signals a critical branding problem. One of those times where the words you use matter way more than people want to believe.

“Pro-life” is obviously a very good piece of political marketing. But I honestly think the relative success of the two labels isn’t so much about how good theirs is, but how bad is ours.

“Choice” is consumerist framing, a word commonly encountered in advertising and commercial sales. And that makes it out of place in a debate about issues so sensitive and personal. The consumerism frame seems innocuous enough to many liberals. But I think it could actually be triggering blowback instead of winning assent, as political marketing language can do. I am convinced that this choice of framing is contributing to the intensity of opposition to reproductive rights advocacy. When they say “it’s a child not a choice,” I think there is genuine indignation at perceived blitheness about the subject among liberals.

“Safe and legal” is four syllables, and it’s a phrase rather than a word, but it’s one of the very good pieces of rhetoric on our side and we have to use it more.

I wonder if it might also be effective to refer to adversaries as “prohibitionists.” There is a broad social consensus today around an idea at the heart of the marijuana legalization movement. It’s becoming something like conventional wisdom that “bans don’t work.” This same framing is successfully at work undermining gun safety measures around the country. It’s very effective, and it’s very “now.” I wonder how the safe and legal movement can improve messaging by adapting more of this sort of framing to greater effect.

Last thought in an over-long comment. Anat Shenker-Osorio’s fantastic podcast series, “Words to Win By,” includes a very interesting piece on how the safe and legal movement in Ireland finally broke through centuries of Catholic political control to win reproductive rights for Irish women. Their approach was absolutely nothing like the tone and substance of pro-choice advocacy we are used to, and its results are hard to argue with. I strongly encourage a listen.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Dr. Lakoff, for your important work. The Empathy Surplus Network USA continues to host weekly discussions on your books by our members as we seek to apply your insights to our moral and political discourse. I hope your followers will check out our #ProEmpathy Freedom Declaration Toolkit at https://bit.ly/PEDtool

Expand full comment