pro-choice

this term has long been used to support the right of those who can become pregnant (not government or religious hierarchy) to make the decision about abortion. Current discussion questions "choice" as the best descriptor of this issue. Linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff wants to move away from "the linguistically inaccurate word 'choice.'" He argues that "choice" is less serious and derives from a consumer, rather than a moral, vocabulary. He would prefer the emphasis to be on personal freedom. Marlene Fried of SisterSong adds that choice is not a sufficiently powerful moral argument, especially when you have to challenge the "pro-life" framework of those opposed to women's rights. Katha Pollitt (in The Nation, 2013) agrees: "Today we are so bombarded with choices the word sounds 'frivolous'—like choosing your cellphone plan." She adds, however, that no matter what the issue is called, it will get devalued. Other objections to the term "pro-choice" include the fact that many pregnant people have no choice: according to the Guttmacher Institute, one out of every four women enrolled in Medicaid who would otherwise choose abortion has to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because Medicare won't pay and she can't cover out-of-pocket costs herself, and, in 2017, 89 percent of of U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider, and several states have only a clinic or two staffed by a doctor who flies in from another state. Whenever feasible, write and speak of "abortion," "abortion access," "funded abortion," "accessible abortion," "reproductive rights," or "reproductive justice" instead of "pro-choice." See also abortion, abortionist, anti-choice, fetus, late-term abortion, pro-life, reproductive justice, reproductive rights.