LensCrafters of family planning?

global brand strategy book cover 01Man, I missed Stephanie Simon. She’s the superhuman religion reporter who left the Los Angeles Times in April for the Wall Street Journal. These last few months of California-heavy coverage without her ace reporting have been difficult to endure. I missed her so much that I just randomly Googled her name . . . and found a fantastic story that ran last week in the Journal. I have no idea how I missed this huge Page One story with tons of graphics. (If that link does not work, try this reprint from the Denver Post.) It’s vintage Simon — she reports the heck out of her pieces, gives them a compelling angle, and writes beautifully.

Still based in God’s country (that would be my native Colorado), Simon looks at how Planned Parenthood is working to extend its brand by marketing to affluent women and building huge new centers in suburbia. What makes all this particularly interesting is that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit that is heavily subsidized by federal and state governments. Well, that and the notion that abortion and birth control services would be something that would be branded:

Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach, seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image. . . .

Two elegant new health centers have been built, and at least five more are on the way; the facility in Denver will be 52,000 square feet. They feature touches such as muted lighting, hardwood floors and airy waiting rooms in colors selected by marketing experts — as well as walls designed to withstand a car’s impact should an antiabortion protest turn violent.

Planned Parenthood has also opened more than two dozen quick-service “express centers,” many in suburban shopping malls.

Some sell jewelry, candles, books and T-shirts, along with contraception. . . .

While Planned Parenthood executives describe the tactics as a natural extension of their mission, the moves have opened the organization up to criticism from foes and friends alike.

Antiabortion groups point out that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, reported a record $1 billion in annual revenue in its most recent financial report — about a third of that coming from federal and state grants to care for low-income women. The nonprofit ended the year with a surplus of $115 million, or about 11 percent of its revenue, and net assets of $952 million.

Simon speaks with both anti-abortion activists who argue that the government shouldn’t be giving so many funds to an organization in this financial situation. She also speaks with Planned Parenthood’s president who defends the revenue stream and management of funds.

What I also love about the story is that it doesn’t just pit pro-lifers against Planned Parenthood. She finds that competitors in the contraception and abortion business are none-too-pleased as well. After discussing Planned Parenthood’s mission statement changes, she speaks with a competitor:

“This is not the Planned Parenthood we all grew up with . . . they now have more of a business approach, much more aggressive,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, who runs abortion clinics in Texas and Maryland.

Ms. Hagstrom Miller competes with Planned Parenthood for abortion patients — and finds it deeply frustrating. She does not receive the government grants or tax-deductible donations that bolster Planned Parenthood, and says she can’t match the nonprofit’s budget for advertising or clinic upgrades. She has carved her own niche by touting her care as more holistic — and by charging $425 for a first-trimester surgery at her Austin clinic, compared with $475 at the local Planned Parenthood. (Both Ms. Hagstrom Miller and Planned Parenthood say they work out discounts and payment plans for the needy.) “They’re not unlike other big national chains,” Ms. Hagstrom Miller said. “They put local independent businesses in a tough situation.”

Other abortion providers also weigh in with criticism, saying that Planned Parenthood’s new outreach to the “young, hip and affluent” is leaving poor women behind. One aspect to the story is missing and it feels somewhat weird. Simon repeatedly mentions Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood. She mentions Sanger’s activism in support of contraception. But for a story dealing with reaching out to poor vs. rich, Sanger’s views on eugenics really should be mentioned, shouldn’t they?
plannedparenthood
As one might expect in the Journal, the story really digs into the business decisions made at the national and local affiliate level.

“I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning,” Steve Trombley, the top executive in Illinois, said as he toured an express center a few doors down from a hair salon and a Japanese restaurant in the well-to-do suburb of Schaumburg, Ill.

Simon explains that Planned Parenthood claims a loss of $1 on each packet of birth control pills given to poor women under the federal Title X program but makes a profit of $22 on each packet of pills sold to adults who pay full price. She explains how the excess funds are used and that Planned Parenthood is targeting the affluent in part to protect itself from any funding cutbacks. Here’s another fascinating tidbit:

Nationally, Planned Parenthood’s political-action arm plans to raise $10 million to influence the fall campaign. Under federal tax law, the health-care wing of Planned Parenthood cannot support political candidates but can mobilize voters and advocate on issues such as abortion rights and sex education in schools.

To encourage the new wave of patients to join the cause, an express center in Parker, Colo., sells political buttons next to the condoms and sets out invitations to activism by the magazine rack. A 52,000-square-foot center opening this summer in Denver uses about 20% of its space for health care; roughly 40% is for meetings, including political work.

Tons of other interesting information as well: specifics on how the new buildings are being built to provide a buffer between anti-abortion activists and patients, attempts to make clinics eco-friendly, and information on a marketing campaign billing a $2 condom as a “must-have fashion accessory.”

One thing that would have been nice to include would have been a discussion from people who don’t welcome Planned Parenthood’s arrival to the local mall. It’s terribly fascinating that Planned Parenthood considers itself a lifestyle brand. Other people find it a brand of death. A discussion of that conflict would definitely have been interesting.

Just another great story from Simon. Her command of the faith and values beat at the Los Angeles Times was exemplary and I look forward to her next Page One story at the Journal. Incidentally, that long Page One feature that runs in every day’s paper is the most coveted real estate in the newspaper. Every singly reporter at the paper is expected to aim for that space so it’s very difficult to get a story in there and it’s impressive that Simon turned that around so quickly.

Print Friendly

  • Brian Walden

    Why is every other group on the planet called by the name it chooses for itself, except for pro-life groups? In the media they’re always called anti-abortion groups?

  • Julia Duin

    Mollie – any way you can find a link to the entire story? The one you gave only gives the top 2 paragraphs.
    It would have been interesting too if Stephanie Simon had compared this new trend of PP’s with what they’ve been accused of hitherto: Placing clinics in heavily urban areas near Hispanic and black communities.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Julia,

    Weird — if you GoogleNews “Stephanie Simon” “Planned Parenthood” you will get access to the whole story in the Journal. But if you link to it, you just get the two paragraphs. I added a link to a reprint in the Denver Post, though.

    Thanks for the heads up.

  • http://www.InklingBooks.com/ Mike Perry

    Interesting that of all the organizations and businesses in the country involved in birth control and abortion, the one Congress has consistently chosen to fund generously is the one with a history of bigotry that makes the Ku Klux Klan pale in comparison. In fact, in one of her autobiographies, PP founder Margaret Sanger describes a well-received speech she made to a Klan women’s group in New Jersey.

    It’s not hard to suspect that Planned Parenthood’s history is precisely why liberals in particular are so eager to keep in flush with cash. Eugenics was, after all, a progressive cause and in its heyday, its opponents were mostly religions ‘reactionaries’ such as the English journalist, G. K. Chesterton. And the mainstream press jumped on board enthusiastically. In 1912, the NY Times would call eugenics “a wonderful new science.”

    I’ve seen that attitude myself. A liberal English professor, about to enter a Planned Parenthood fundraiser near Seattle, came up with what was for him the ultimate argument for legalized abortion. Dropping his voice to a conspiratorial whisper, he pointed to a young black man nearby and said to me, “That’s why we need abortion.”

    For those who want to know more, there are numerous books on this topic, including one I am reading right now, John G. West’s excellent Darwin Day in America. And for those who want to get their facts from the source, there is my extensive collection of the published writings of Margaret Sanger and her supporters, The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective.

    I might add that there’s a quite logical reason why liberals and perhaps a liberal news media are so intent on squelching the birth rate of poor people, one they talked about quite openly in the early twentieth century. Because the welfare state subsidizes dysfunctional lifestyles, it unintentionally encourages what liberals would consider ‘the wrong sort’ to have large numbers of children who will, in turn, have large number of children, leading eventually to the destruction of the welfare state. That is quite close what Thomas Malthus was warning about two centuries ago.

    For liberals, the solution is to use every stick and carrot they can get away with to reduce that birthrate. Sanger’s own conversion to the philosophy came on a visit to Glasgow. Outraged to discover that the city’s Fabian (socialist) leaders only offered subsidized housing to poor working families with two or fewer children, she challenged their policy. When they explained why they were forcing large, poor families into the hands of exploitative slumlords, she became a convert to birth control. In that era, her primary concern was the large waves of immigrants coming from Eastern and Southern Europe, hence her first clinic in the Brownsville neighborhood of NYC, an immigrant neighborhood.

    I’ve often wondered why the mainstream media doesn’t run with a story this hot. “Billions in Federal Funds given to Racist Organization” ought to generate more than a few sales. As best I can discern, reporters simply have trouble thinking ‘outside the box.’ Planned Parenthood is a progressive organization helping poor women with unplanned pregnancies, they assume. It can’t be something else.

    And reporters are telling me that, as the finances of newspapers get tighter and tighter, reporters get less and less time to think about any particular story. The Internet has compounded the problem. Now they sometimes have to come up with two versions of their story. The William Shirer sort of reporter, who might have to file one of two European dateline stories a week in the 1930s, is a thing of the past.

  • Dave2

    Brian Walden wrote:

    Why is every other group on the planet called by the name it chooses for itself, except for pro-life groups? In the media they’re always called anti-abortion groups?

    What exactly are you referring to? Simon’s article doesn’t include the term ‘pro-choice’. I searched Google News for ‘pro-life’ (2047 results), ‘pro-choice’ (1480 results), and ‘anti-abortion’ (1428 results), and I don’t see any such problem.

  • Dave2

    Mike Perry, are you saying that contemporary liberals enthusiastically support Planned Parenthood because they sympathize with the racist and classist attitudes associated with the eugenics movement of the early 20th century? If so, I would very much like to see some evidence for that incendiary charge.

    Moreover, the repellent views of Sanger in no way license the charge that Planned Parenthood is a “racist organization”, not any more than the repellent views of Martin Luther license the charge that the Lutheran World Federation is an anti-Semitic organization. Finally, even with a full acknowledgment of the ugly history of the birth control movement, the statement that their bigotry “makes the Ku Klux Klan pale in comparison” is quite simply deranged.

  • Dave

    Mike Perry’s entire comment #4 is an unsupported attribution of motive to people he doesn’t agree with (liberals). I could make a similar charge that conservatives want to deny birth control to poor folks because they want a steady flow of cheap labor, but I don’t think I could keep a straight face long enough to compose it fully. Comment #4 has no place in a board about the (in)competence of the media in covering matters with religious overtones.

  • Brian Walden

    Dave 2, The article uses antiabortion 5 times, pro-life 0. The worst use has to be this sentence from the article: “Why are we giving them so much money?” asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of the antiabortion American Life League.

    I went to ALL’s website and clicked on the “I’m New” link which explains what the organization is about. That page uses pro-life 10 times, anti 0. I think it’s pretty safe to say that Jim Sedlak didn’t describe the ALL as being antiabortion.

    Would you see a problem with pro-choicers being described as pro-abortion? The media would never do such a thing. So why do they do it with pro-lifers?

  • Kari

    I think the Schaumburg Planned Parenthood location mentioned in this article is the one right outside my apartment complex. kinda weird to see it mentioned in a national newspaper.

    It’s not in the middle of town, and I don’t think there are any churches in the immediate vicinity (within a block or so). It’s mostly apartments, commercial, and light industrial in this little corner of suburbia.

  • Dave2

    Brian Walden wrote:

    Dave 2, The article uses antiabortion 5 times, pro-life 0. The worst use has to be this sentence from the article: “Why are we giving them so much money?” asked Jim Sedlak, vice president of the antiabortion American Life League.

    I went to ALL’s website and clicked on the “I’m New” link which explains what the organization is about. That page uses pro-life 10 times, anti 0. I think it’s pretty safe to say that Jim Sedlak didn’t describe the ALL as being antiabortion.

    Would you see a problem with pro-choicers being described as pro-abortion? The media would never do such a thing. So why do they do it with pro-lifers?

    I recognize that the article uses the term ‘antiabortion’ instead of ‘pro-life’. By itself, that looks like a good idea: (i) ‘pro-life’, like ‘pro-choice’ or ‘death tax’, is a politically loaded term, and (ii) ‘antiabortion’ gives a more accurate description of the position. Admittedly, there is a downside, in that it’s not the term used by the organizations in question. But I doubt those organizations would object to the term ‘antiabortion’, which seems to be a plain vanilla description of their position. But if you have any reason to think that pro-life organizations really would object to the term, then I’d be glad to hear it.

    However, I must strongly disagree with your analogy. People who think abortion ought to be legal (so-called ‘pro-choicers’) most certainly should not be called ‘pro-abortion’ for the quite obvious reason that many of them have serious moral misgivings about abortions, but nevertheless are in favor of keeping the procedure legal.

  • Dave

    Brian, picture a group of ALL members sitting around a table stuffing envelopes for ALL. One of them is against abortion and also against executions. The adjacent person is against abortion and also against contraception. Both fit into ALL. The word that best describes both of them is “anti-abortion.”

  • Brian Walden

    Dave2 said,

    By itself, that looks like a good idea: (i) ‘pro-life’, like ‘pro-choice’ or ‘death tax’, is a politically loaded term, and (ii) ‘antiabortion’ gives a more accurate description of the position.

    I seem to remember another thread where Dave, not you Dave2, was arguing that abortion is a politically loaded term. Which one is it? If pro-life is politically loaded, then it’s counterpart pro-choice is just as politically loaded. I dont see any arguing it for it not being used.

    Admittedly, there is a downside, in that it’s not the term used by the organizations in question.

    Admittedly, there is a general rule in journalism and in common courtesy that you refer to a group. Surely you don’t think the Catholic Church is truly Catholic, yet people of goodwill use that name. And you don’t think the Orthodox Churches are truly Orthodox, but we all call them by their chosen names. Make all the arguments you want of why pro-life isn’t the most accurate term; people know what pro-life means when used in the context of abortion. Pro-life is the preferred term amongst most pro-life groups.

    But I doubt those organizations would object to the term ‘antiabortion’, which seems to be a plain vanilla description of their position.

    Fine, if antiabortion is so vanilla, I’ll go along with it if pro-choice is replaced with proabortion.

    But if you have any reason to think that pro-life organizations really would object to the term, then I’d be glad to hear it.

    I gave you a reason, ALL who was quoted in the article, describes themself as pro-life and never anti-abortion. That’s any reason. Also I’m a member of the Knights of Columbus, which is not strictly a pro-life organization but pro-life is a part of what we’re about. We prefer to be called pro-life and object to being called anti-abortion. That’s two reasons.

    However, I must strongly disagree with your analogy. People who think abortion ought to be legal (so-called ‘pro-choicers’) most certainly should not be called ‘pro-abortion’ for the quite obvious reason that many of them have serious moral misgivings about abortions, but nevertheless are in favor of keeping the procedure legal.

    Many people who support same sex marriage have serious moral misgivings about homosexual sex and would never participate in it themselves. Yet they still believe that people who disagree with them should be able marry a person of the same sex and support the movement. Are these people not labelled as being for same sex marriage, or pro- same sex marriage?

    Dave said:

    Brian, picture a group of ALL members sitting around a table stuffing envelopes for ALL. One of them is against abortion and also against executions. The adjacent person is against abortion and also against contraception. Both fit into ALL. The word that best describes both of them is “anti-abortion.”

    I have a high view of people. They’re smart enough to know what a word means by the context it’s being used in. Yes one meaning of pro-life encompasses a wide stance concerning a number of issues. At the same time, when used when discussing abortion it clearly means people who believe that we have no right to kill our children. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the term pro-life come from the debate over legalized abortion?

  • Dave

    Brian, I can recall a time in the ’60s when being pro-life meant you believed there was life on Mars (no kidding). The term became a political slogan after Roe v Wade, with those who objected to that decision labeling themselves “pro-life” and calling those who disagreed with them “pro-death.” Again, no kidding. One of the reasons I have so little patience with “pro-life” complaints about what they are called and what pro-choicers are called, is the torrent of verbal abuse that poured forth from the anti-abotion movement during those years.

  • Stoo

    Why is anti-abortion so objectionable?

    Fine, if antiabortion is so vanilla, I’ll go along with it if pro-choice is replaced with proabortion.

    Make that latter one pro-abortion-rights and I’d agree. The “rights” suffix is superfluous to the anti camp, but not the pro.

  • Sean Gallagher

    Planned Parenthood’s new outreach to the “young, hip and affluent” is leaving poor women behind

    Admittedly, this evidence is anecdotal, but what I’ve seen in Indianapolis over the past couple of years or so has been interesting.

    PP had an abortion facility in a part of town where many poor and minority women would have lived. But a couple of years or so ago, they moved to a part of town that was decidedly more affluent and quite far away from the previous facility.

    And as public transportation in Indianapolis being as poor as it is, PP couldn’t make the argument that their disadvantaged clientele could have easily gotten to their new location.

    PP has also about once a year run a widespread billboard campaign in the city that, on the one hand, feature “young and hip” looking people. On the other hand, they’ve also placed billboards in Spanish in neighborhoods where Hispanics, at the lower end of their social clientele, often live.

    I wonder if the Hispanics would be among the “human weeds” that Sanger referred to in her eugenic writing…?

  • Sean Gallagher

    they now have more of a business approach, much more aggressive

    The evidence in Indy here is a bit more ambivalent. One the one hand, PP’s old facility was quite close (about a mile) from another abortion faciity. Maybe in moving far away they were wanting to move away from their competition. On the other hand, in their billboard campaign, they’ve usually used billboards quite close to their competitor’s facility.

    Tons of other interesting information as well: specifics on how the new buildings are being built to provide a buffer between anti-abortion activists and patients

    Yep. That definitely happened between PP’s old facility in Indy and its new one. The new place is almost like a fortress.

    One thing that would have been nice to include would have been a discussion from people who don’t welcome Planned Parenthood’s arrival to the local mall.

    PP’s old facility in Indy was perpindicularly across a parking lot from a small strip mall. The owner of that mall allowed pro-life activists to paint a large sign on the end of his building that gave PP clients an 800 number to call for help in their pregnancy.

    The new facility, on the other hand, is much further away from all other buildings, most of which are warehouses, not retail space.

  • Dave2

    Brian Walden,

    Sometimes you respond to me as if you are disagreeing with me, when in fact you are agreeing with me. For example, when I wrote “Admittedly, there is a downside [in using the term 'antiabortion'], in that it’s not the term used by the organizations in question,” you responded in a way that was (i) in complete agreement with me that there is that exact downside, and (ii) sneering and contemptuous. I don’t know how to take that.

    Now to the issues.

    I seem to remember another thread where Dave, not you Dave2, was arguing that abortion is a politically loaded term. Which one is it? If pro-life is politically loaded, then it’s counterpart pro-choice is just as politically loaded. I dont see any arguing it for it not being used.

    You’ll notice that I said ‘pro-choice’ was also politically loaded. I am reluctant to use the term ‘pro-life’ to just the same extent that I am reluctant to use the term ‘pro-choice’. Both are labels of political boosterism and cheerleading. It would be nice if we had other labels that were more neutral. ‘Anti-abortion’ seems to fit the bill for the pro-life side, but unfortunately its counterpart ‘pro-abortion’ is ghoulishly inappropriate for the pro-choice side. Since ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are the standard terms used by the key players in this political drama, it therefore makes sense to use them, but I still see no real harm in using the apparently neutral term ‘anti-abortion’.

    I gave you a reason, ALL who was quoted in the article, describes themself as pro-life and never anti-abortion. That’s any reason. Also I’m a member of the Knights of Columbus, which is not strictly a pro-life organization but pro-life is a part of what we’re about. We prefer to be called pro-life and object to being called anti-abortion. That’s two reasons.

    You say you’ve given two reasons. But I have yet to hear a reason why any pro-lifer would object to the term ‘anti-abortion’. As yet the only strike against the term is simply that it’s not ‘pro-life’. But that doesn’t locate any problem specific to the term ‘anti-abortion’. So I’m left wondering why you think pro-lifers would object to it.

    Many people who support same sex marriage have serious moral misgivings about homosexual sex and would never participate in it themselves. Yet they still believe that people who disagree with them should be able marry a person of the same sex and support the movement. Are these people not labelled as being for same sex marriage, or pro- same sex marriage?

    I am skeptical that the misgivings of these conflicted supporters of same-sex marriage really approach the misgivings of the conflicted pro-choicers. But in any case, to my ear, being ‘for same-sex marriage’ naturally sounds like support of the institutional authorization of same-sex marriage, whereas being ‘for abortion’ more naturally sounds like support of aborting one’s unborn offspring as opposed to support of institutional authorization of abortion. Your mileage may vary.

  • Chris Bolinger

    But I have yet to hear a reason why any pro-lifer would object to the term ‘anti-abortion’.

    One potential objection is that, while the term “pro-choice” was chosen by the pro-choice camp, the term “anti-abortion” was chosen for pro-lifers by the decidedly pro-choice press. I believe that pro-lifers would like to define their own term, so to speak.

  • Dave2

    Chris Bolinger,

    One potential objection is that, while the term “pro-choice” was chosen by the pro-choice camp, the term “anti-abortion” was chosen for pro-lifers by the decidedly pro-choice press. I believe that pro-lifers would like to define their own term, so to speak.

    Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that objection. That’s why I originally wrote “Admittedly, there is a downside, in that it’s not the term used by the organizations in question.” But that’s not an objection specific to the term ‘anti-abortion’, which is what I was requesting.

    I looked at the pro-life antiabortionsigns.com, and though they’re ultimately in favor of using the term ‘anti-abortion’, they raise the issue that terms with ‘anti-’ at the head automatically sound unflattering (like a “narrow-minded, maniacal bigot”). This doesn’t sound right to my ear (take e.g. the Anti-Imperialist League), but it’s the sort of point that would make me understand pro-lifers’ objection to the term ‘anti-abortion’.

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Someone asked what people would have against being called “anti-abortion.”

    I realize I used this contentious descriptor myself in this post but the general objection is that activists like to be described with what they support rather than oppose.

    In public relations it’s better to be for something than against something. Positive over negative.

  • Stephen A.

    Dave2 wrote:

    By itself, that looks like a good idea: (i) ‘pro-life’, like ‘pro-choice’ or ‘death tax’, is a politically loaded term, and (ii) ‘antiabortion’ gives a more accurate description of the position.

    This pro-life/antiabortion argument reminds me of discussions I’ve had with liberals about media bias.

    They readily condemn Fox News’ conservative media bias, but they then claim that CNN, the NYT and other MSM outlets are “normal” because they’re simply not biased (or “accurate” to use Dave2′s term for pro-choice.) This is an institutional and cultural issue with liberals.

    The same thing here. If pro-life is “politically loaded,” surely “pro-choice” is as well. I’d add that it’s also MORALLY loaded, because (and two can play this game) many people feel its immoral, actually murder, to abort a baby.

    This inability to see how the other side sees itself is irrelevant, frankly. Just as churches and individuals may describe themselves as “Christian” (old thread. old can-o-worms) without question, both sides have a right to describe themselves as warriors for Life, or as warriors for Rights, whether we agree with those positions or not.

  • Brian Walden

    Dave2,

    I apologize if my tone was inappropriate in my previous comment. Anti-abortion has a connotation. Well actually, as you’ve pointed out, every word in the abortion debate has a connotation. Think about other terms we put “anti” in front of. The first ones that come to my mind are anti-war and anti-death penalty. These are both cases where there is a legitimate choice which some groups believe should not be exercised (at least under current circumstances). But you don’t hear terms like anti-murder or anti-thievery because everyone knows that murder and thievery are always wrong. It just sounds weird to put anti in front of those words. Pro-lifers put abortion in the second category (actually they see it as no different from murder). I think, for me personally, this is why I find the word anti-abortion so jarring. The connotations associated with it don’t fit with the truth of what abortion really is.

    I realize that there is no perfect solution to this. Every word used to describe abortion will upset some people. In such a climate isn’t it best for reporters who claim to be writing objectively to just let each side use their own terms – especially when pro-life and pro-choice are established terms and people understand what they mean.

  • Dave

    Pro-choice and pro-life are both bumper-sticker terms that beg for better definition.

    During the great feminist war on pornography, for example, millions of “pro-choice” women were definitely “anti-choice” if the choice involved was a co-ed’s decision to pose for Playboy. She was not exercising choice but being exploited, internalizing her oppression, too immature to know better, etc — anything but an autonomous woman exercising choice.

    Millions of “pro-lifers” are against all state policies that end human life, specifically war and execution. Millions aren’t, and the movement as a whole focuses on abortion with minors in euthanasia and stem cell reasearch.

    I daresay the MSM makes its choices of “anti-abortion” and “pro-choice” in part on the basis of accuracy — the feminist anti-porn war flamed out a long time ago — and in part based on their perception of what language will make their writing seem worthy of being trusted by the largest number of readers.

  • Dave2

    Stephen A.,

    I’m a little taken aback, because your representation of my views is precisely the opposite of what I said—indeed, in the very passage you quoted.

    I said that ‘pro-choice’ was a politically loaded term. In another comment I said that it was a label of “political boosterism and cheerleading”. I never said it was “accurate”. Quite the contrary.

    But, in your representation of my views, you write that I think ‘pro-choice’ is an “accurate” term (“‘accurate’ to use Dave2’s term for pro-choice”). You also write: “If pro-life is ‘politically loaded,’ surely ‘pro-choice’ is as well” as if I disagreed, as if I had said that ‘pro-life’ was politically loaded and ‘pro-choice’ was plain and accurate.

    I don’t know what to say.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X