I have been thinking a lot about abortion this week. First, Congress used Planned Parenthood (and the issue of Federal funding for abortions) as a bargaining chip during this month’s budget standoff (visit Think Progress to read about how Senator Kyl’s (R-Arizona) staff admitted that his statements about the amount of money Planned Parenthood spends on abortion “was not intended to be a factual statement” and read 5 Myths about Planned Parenthood in the Washington Post). Then the Susan B. Anthony List launched a campaign against Planned Parenthood, basically calling the organization a fraud. Their radio and television spots claim that Planned Parenthood runs abortion clinics rather than providing women’s health and reproductive services (Read more about the campaign at Huff Post.)
Regardless of your position on abortion, don’t you find it odd that a woman’s right to choose is so often positioned as the central wedge issue during government budget negotiations, and political and organizational campaigns, fundraising, and other maneuvering? It is an effective strategy because abortion is such an emotionally charged word. More than a decade ago, a group of famous women ran an ad that displayed their names under the heading: “I had an abortion.” The goal of the campaign was to make the word less powerful when used to define women in relation to a highly personal decision that most do not make lightly.
We have said it before and we will say it again—words matter. This is especially true when they are used to divert attention from more important issues (e.g. focusing budget negotiations on funding for abortion rather than what is needed to restore our country’s crumbling infrastructure) or to divide us into opposing factions with little opportunity for compromise. Apparently our leaders believe that women’s control over their lives is a legitimate bargaining chip, and their use of emotionally-loaded language to talk about abortion does little to advance thoughtful discourse on an issue they claim to care about.
Our congressional leaders need to learn that negotiation does not mean war and that doing your job correctly does not mean letting tasks slide to the last possible minute and then creating diversionary tactics as a cover for poor performance. Just imagine your supervisor’s reaction if you and a colleague declared yourself at an impasse and felt it best to let the work of the company come to a grinding halt. Most important, they need to learn that good governance, like all good leadership, requires more than highly charged rhetoric.
We can change this—starting with the seemingly small but oh so powerful act of speaking up when someone around you makes a sexist remark. We can change this by demanding that our leaders use responsible language when discussing sensitive issues rather than inflaming the sensibilities of everyone around them. We can change this by holding elected officials accountable for doing their jobs and letting them know that we want a lot less speechifying and a lot more positive action.
We can change this. Let’s start now.
Cynthia
