One of the tactics of supporters of abortion has always been the manipulation of language. From the beginning of the debate, being for abortion was cast as “pro-choice,” rather than “pro-abortion.”
Lately the term that has described those opposed to abortion for decades – “pro-life” – has been abandoned by liberal journalists, who have replaced it with “anti-abortion.”
The term “pro-choice” has also received an upgrade, as their allies in the media now more often refer to them as abortion “advocates” or “supporters of women’s rights.”
This isn’t just my imagination, either. Here’s the AP Stylebook’s 2017 rule: “The AP Stylebook holds that journalists should use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and use pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.
Additionally, AP Style states journalists should avoid the term abortionist, as it connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”
But the word games don’t stop there, especially for those of us in Michigan anticipating a vote on whether to add a radical pro-abortion amendment to the state constitution.
After collecting their signatures to put on the upcoming ballot, pro-abortionists under the name Reproductive Freedom for All are now trying to change the language summarizing the amendment which would actually show up on that ballot.
When the petition language was submitted to the board for the petition, before they could even ask Michiganders to start signing the petition, the Reproductive Freedom for All board approved certain language that would describe the amendment to voters on the official petition and in the booth. The Detroit Free Press is now reporting that the lawyer representing that same group is asking the election board to change that language.
The summary language as it is currently slated to appear on the ballot – and which appeared on the petition – states that the amendment would “invalidate all state laws that conflict” with it. The Reproductive Freedom for All campaign, which agreed to that language for their petition, says that is “inaccurate, untrue, and impartial.”
It actually wouldn’t result in the immediate invalidation of conflicting state laws, they argue, a judge would have to acknowledge the conflict and render those laws invalid. It’s different, you see.
Reproductive Freedom for All was ok with the language when they were asking radical pro-abortionists to sign the petition – or when they could have an advocate describe it to potential signees in flowery, inaccurate language – but when the amendment comes before the general public, “invalidating state laws” might rub voters the wrong way. Indeed, it should, because included in those conflicting laws are statutes protecting parental rights and prohibiting statutory rape.
“An individual’s right to reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, nor infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means,” the language reads.
But John Bursch, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, points out that the amendment would nullify the state’s legal requirement for minors to obtain consent for a medical procedure relating to the child’s reproduction.
“Because ‘an individual’ includes everybody, no matter how old they are, I don’t know how any lawyer could look at this and think that the state could impose a limitation,” he said.
Once again, pro-abortionists are playing word games. Only this time, it’s not just the unborn children who could be victimized.
The Board of State Canvassers will vote whether to or not to add the amendment to the ballot tomorrow, Wendnesday, August 31 – which they are expected to do – as well as whether or not to approve the description as it stands. While they search for every edge in this election fight, we are praying that every edge be denied them. It is our prayer that God would open the eyes of the people of Michigan to see how indescribably wicked abortion is and that we would see every child as the gift from Him that they are. Please join us in prayer that God would over rule the attempts of the wicked in our state.