Abortion and the SCOTUS
Language

The older I become the more I see the need for defining what you mean when you use a term. Take evangelical, what does it mean to call oneself an evangelical? It used to have a pretty clear meaning: 1] One who believed in justification by faith and 2] one who believed in the inerrancy, infallibility and inspiration of Holy Scripture, wherein the Gospel is taught and thereby embraced. This, of course, is no longer the case. Evangelical, and the justification by faith and the dimensions of Scripture that heretofore defined it, are all up for grabs. So, I make it a point to ask folks who use these terms to define them so I know where they are coming from.

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the latest SCOTUS decision on abortion, there is an interesting bit of side bar by Justice Ginsburg in her dissent. She is upset with the majority deciding that partial birth abortion is not a protected right of women. She argues that this case flies in the face of the Nebraska Carhart case that struck down the procedure as unconstitutional. And, she goes through the whole litany of arguments that anti-abortion statutes are based on the pre-enlightened patriarchy that suppressed women that Roe and its progeny resolved:

As Casey comprehended, at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman's "control over her [own] destiny." 505 U. S., at 869 (plurality opinion). See also id., at 852 (majority opinion).2 "There was a time, not so long ago," when women were "regarded as the center of home and family life, with attendant special responsibilities that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution." Id., at 896-897 (quoting Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U. S. 57, 62 (1961)). Those views, this Court made clear in Casey, "are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution." 505 U. S., at 897.

In her comments are about the use of language she takes umbrage with how the majority uses terms in its opinion. Here is that section:

Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label "abortion doctor." Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33. A fetus is described as an "unborn child," and as a "baby," ante, at 3, 8; second-trimester, pre-viability abortions are referred to as "late-term," ante, at 26; and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as "preferences" motivated by "mere convenience," ante, at 3, 37. Instead of the heightened scrutiny we have previously applied, the Court determines that a "rational" ground is enough to uphold the Act, ante, at 28, 37. And, most troubling, Casey's principles, confirming the continuing vitality of "the essential holding of Roe," are merely "assume[d]" for the moment, ante, at 15, 31, rather than "retained" or "reaffirmed," Casey, 505 U. S., at 846.

Justice Ginsburg is disturbed that the court is using “pejorative” terms to buttress their position. However, the term “abortion doctor” is used by…well…abortion doctors, in editorials in the NY Times, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups. And, the terms “unborn child” and “baby” highlights the fact that PBA does destroy life in a gruesome manner. It is no wonder that abortion rights folk want to use the term “fetus” since it is a dehumanizing term. Finally, confirming “the essential holding of Roe” instead of affirming or retaining Roe may be nothing more than a linguistic devise. But, on the other hand…………..

Back to our original point, what do we mean when we use terms? For a long time the abortion advocates controlled the language: pro-rights instead of pro-abortion; fetus instead of unborn child; OBG surgeons instead of abortionists. And, if you look in the print and electronic media, the pro-abortion language is the language of choice. So what did the majority mean in using the terms they did? Was it language appropriate to the gruesome PBA? Or, did it signal a change in view of abortion jurisprudence whereby the Ginsburg’s of the world need to be concerned that Roe is in danger? The Court watchers on both sides have their opinions. And, since we cannot ask the majority justices, we will have to wait to see if the language in Gonzales has long term ramifications.

[A more detailed look at this case and the global warming case will be forthcoming in the SGM Magazine]