Why We Should All Say “Anti-Choice,” not “Pro-Life” or “Anti-Abortion”

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg presages a major new contest over abortion rights. Unfortunately, our language around abortion tilts the discussion unfairly against supporting a woman’s right to choose. It is time for a long-overdue change in terms.

The change is simple: we should all refer to the Republican Party’s position as “anti-choice,” not “pro-life” or “anti-abortion.”

As an economist, I believe it is important to base proposals on evidence. Surprisingly, there was no data on how people respond to these basic terms — so I ran a new, nationally representative survey. I found that language matters immensely. One out of every four “pro-life” Americans would identify as pro-choice if the alternative were “anti-choice” instead.

Of course, switching to a pro-choice identity in a survey might not affect voting or party affiliation. But the anti-choice label is not just about rhetoric. It is also a more honest, accurate description of the difference between Democrat and Republican positions that would alter mindsets in deeper ways over time.

Why is the term “pro-life” dishonest? Simple: because in reality no one is “anti-life.”

All women considering abortion trade off different and very real kinds of life. Some women feel a new child would jeopardize the health or education of their existing children. Some women will raise a different child in the future, once they’re ready to give that child a better start. Career considerations can also involve saving life, as anyone postponing childbirth to pursue a career in nursing or medicine can remind us.

These women all make hard trade-offs between protecting different kinds of life. People of good faith can believe their choices are wrong, but no one can look them in the eye and call them “anti-life.” And if no one is anti-life, no one is pro-life. It’s a meaningless term intended to short-circuit clear discussion. The Republican party is not pro-life, it is anti-choice — it wants the law to make these hard trade-offs on behalf of women.

Likewise people who want to prohibit abortion should not be called “anti-abortion,” as many journalists trying to use more neutral language have increasingly referred to them. Why? Because the Democratic position is not “pro-abortion,” either. Many people who are pro-choice think abortion is unfortunate or even immoral. Pro-choicers simply believe ending a pregnancy is a choice adults should be free to make without government interference.

Does it seem perverse to let adults make immoral choices? It’s not. Most people agree it’s wrong to cheat on our spouses, betray our friends, or emotionally abuse our children. We try to avoid and discourage these actions. But that doesn’t mean we ask the government to step in and prohibit them. Does that make us all “pro-adultery” or “pro-betrayal”? Of course not. But that’s the implication of the “anti-abortion” label.

The anti-choice frame also highlights another reason why so many Democrats, even those who consider abortion wrong in some or even all cases, still nonetheless support choice. As Justice Ginsberg put it, in the Republican anti-choice position “we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise.” Rich people can travel abroad, or pay for safe abortions on the black market. It is only working class and low-income people who the Republican party’s anti-choice policy is able to control by taking away affordable, local abortion.

Pro-choice advocates can use the anti-choice frame to reach more people who find abortion wrong, but would nonetheless support individual choice. And journalists can use the anti-choice frame to help the public understand the real nature of this debate, rather than swallowing the misleading language foisted upon them by anti-choice strategists.

In other words, data and common sense suggest this new language would help more voters to be pro-choice in good conscience — not pro-abortion and certainly not anti-life.