'Pro-choice' not 'pro-abortion'

Sandra Fluke, a noted reproductive rights activist, attorney and all-around BAMF, spoke at IU last week on the topic of reproductive rights and the outdated language we use in everyday conversation when discussing it.

Pro-life? Pro-choice? Why do these labels seem to ostensibly steer discussions on reproductive and sexual health when abortion is hardly the sole issue being debated anymore? When did we choose to let abortion act as the flagship for an overall more significant platform?

“We’re not going to just stop saying pro-choice and start saying reproductive justice. We have to have a broader agenda than just abortion access,” Fluke said.

And she’s right. We’re talking access to contraception, cancer screenings and sexual education, among other things.

While Fluke calls out “pro-life” and “pro-choice” for too broadly covering the wide spectrum of reproductive health, I find the stupidity of the phrase “pro-life” goes beyond its inability to encompass all sexual health platforms.

A person carrying the designation of being “pro-life,” of course, means they are against abortion. The inevitable

reciprocal of the “pro-life” designation would seemingly be “pro-abortion.” Lucky for us, someone cooked up “pro-choice”, which has a much more pleasant — and accurate — ring to it. But that in and of itself is the reason “pro-life” is such an absurd and alarmist phrase. It isn’t as if people who believe women have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies are enthusiastically for the abortion of fetuses.

No one champions the physical act of abortion. No one is passionate about making sure abortions happen. Pro-choice believers don’t gather in some back-alley, Oprah-esque meeting where someone wildly screams, “You get an abortion! And you get an abortion!” What people believe in is the woman’s right to make her own reproductive health decisions.

People believe in making sure women have feasible access to an abortion if that is the conclusion she comes to for herself — hence the more appropriate phrase “pro-choice,” and not “pro-abortion.”

But Fluke has a point. “Pro-choice” isn’t a golden phrase, either. Its focus is much too limited in the grand scheme of the political venue. While it’s a wonder to me that anyone has the audacity to politicize issues of such a personal matter, apparently it’s up to a bunch of congressional white men in Washington, D.C., to decide in what manner a woman is supposed to make what should be private decisions.

While abortion and contraception carry the weight of exceedingly contentious issues with religious, personal and political significance, the issues of cancer screenings and sexual education have the potential to affect everyone, regardless of gender or religious affiliation.

We cannot let our self-induced labels of “pro-life” or “pro-choice” come into play when considering them. We cannot afford to paint with the broad brush and see someone who considers themself “pro-life” to be against all the issues that enter the blanket platform of “pro-choice,” or vice versa. It’s time to look above and beyond abortion to see the complete picture, which is available, viable and affordable reproductive health care for everyone.

­— wdmcdona@indiana.edu