|
By John Whiteside on US Politics
Any communications pro will tell you that co-opting your oppenent’s languages and ideas can be a very effective strategy – and we’re seeing that in use right now in South Dakota, where the state’s toughest-in-the-nation abortion ban will be put to a voter referendum next month. The Los Angeles Times reports on the campaign:
In the fight to preserve the toughest abortion ban in the nation, the talk is not of a fetus’ right to life. It’s of a woman’s right to motherhood.
Antiabortion activists here deliberately avoid the familiar slogans of their movement. They don’t talk about the “murder of innocent babies” or quote the Bible on the sanctity of life. Instead, campaign manager Leslee Unruh has taken what she calls a feminist approach, arguing that l egalized abortion exploits women and — for their sake — must be stopped.
The bumper stickers and T-shirts that fill campaign headquarters spell out her message, in pink and blue: “Abortion Hurts Women.”
“We women buy the choice line. We’re panicked, or we’re being pressured, or we’re ashamed to have a child outside marriage,” Unruh said. She speaks from personal experience; she had an abortion nearly 30 years ago and said her life since has been darkened with regret and longing. “If you don’t do your job right as a mother,” Unruh asked, “what good is everything else?”
Abortion-rights supporters call such rhetoric patronizing and presumptuous; they say many women find that ending unwanted pregnancies brings relief and the freedom to pursue other dreams. But they acknowledge that Unruh’s tactic is effective — and that it has thrown their campaign off balance.
“Historically, this debate has been focused on fetal rights, f etal life. We have a lot of language about that,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota and North and South Dakota. “This adds an element we’re not accustomed to. It’s a different line of debate…. And that is something we struggle with politically.”
One of the ideas of this approach (speaking purely in terms of communications strategy) is that it puts your opponent on the defensive; they’ve got to distinguish what they’re saying from what you’re saying, and if you’ve grabbed the concepts that underpin their main argument, they need to shift gears:
Attuned to the values of this very conservative state, abortion-rights activists have decided not to make a stand on a woman’s right to choose. The big poster outside their campaign headquarters makes a much milder point: “This law simply goes too far.” One of their TV ads starts out: “South Dakotans agree, honor and protect human life.” The ad goes on to affirm support for reducing the number of abortions, but argues that the law is too inflexible.
It’s an interesting approach, and we’ll see how it works out for the anti-abortion campaigners. It is not, however, without controversy:
Abortion-rights supporters respond with exasperation. The American Psychological Assn. has found that abortion carries few long-term emotional risks. And clinic doctors routinely turn away women who are uncertain or seem to have been coerced.
Some women undoubtedly regret their abortions. “But women also marry someone who turns out to be an abusive spouse, and we don’t therefore say that marriage hurts women,” Stoesz said.
This, and another factor, make this one of the more interesting abortion debates in the US to watch.
The South Dakota law is sweeping: there is no provision for women who are victims of rape or incest. Which, if you believe that abortion is mu rder, makes sense: why should someone be murdered for the misdeeds of one of their parents?
But it’s that kind of sweep that makes moderate voters – who don’t like the idea of abortion, but aren’t too thrilled with the idea of a woman having to give birth to a rapist’s child, either – uncomfortable. I will give those who crafted the South Dakota law credit for consistency: they have designed a law which puts their central belief (abortion is murder) into action. That can’t be said of most attempts to restrict abortion in the US.
Complete ideological consistency, of course, would pair abortion restrictions with attempts to make contraception more widely available and understood – which would eliminate the demand for abortions in the first place. But somehow that never seems to happen…
|
Nothing stirs up the bomb-throwers on the left faster than an abortion-related court decision that favors life. Wednesday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart upholding the constitutionality of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was no exception. What is new and outrageous, however, even for the left, are allegations that the religious faith of the majority justices improperly influenced the decision.