In
abortion trials, even language is a battleground
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- An ''abortion'' versus
a ''procedure.'' A ''baby'' versus a ''pregnancy.''
''Dismembered'' versus ''disarticulated.''
In
the three federal courtrooms where a controversial
abortion method has been on trial, the gulf
between the two sides is so wide that they
cannot agree on basic terminology.
At
issue is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
Act, signed by President Bush last year.
In simultaneous trials held in New York,
San Francisco and Lincoln, Neb., judges
are considering whether the law violates
the constitutional right to abortion.
Inside
and outside the courtroom, the two sides
often have differing vocabularies, beginning
with the very name of the banned procedure.
Congress
and opponents of the procedure call it ''partial-birth
abortion.'' Doctors and activists on the
other side of the issue use the medical
term ''intact dilation and extraction.''
''There
is no such thing as a 'partial-birth abortion,'''
Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, declared outside
the courthouse in San Francisco.
The
language reflects a fundamental disagreement
over whether the fate of the fetus or the
mother's right to choose is paramount.
Much
of the abortion debate involves ''the politics
of euphemisms,'' said Alison Renteln, a
University of Southern California political
science professor.
''It
all depends on how you conceptualize the
life that is at stake,'' said Renteln, whose
book ''The Cultural Defense'' analyzes how
courts deal with defendants' cultural backgrounds.
''That the government and their witnesses
use the word 'abortion' openly in court
and the other side is sometimes reluctant
to do so says a lot.''
In
the banned procedure, a doctor partially
removes a living fetus from the womb and
then punctures or crushes its skull. The
fetus is then removed whole.
The
Bush administration has argued that the
procedure is gruesome, inhumane, painful
to the fetus, and never medically necessary.
Abortion providers insist it is sometimes
necessary to preserve a woman's health.
In
the courtroom, Justice Department lawyers
and government witnesses freely talk about
''abortion'' and ''aborting''; the abortion-rights
side generally speaks of ''the procedure''
or ''evacuating a pregnancy.''
The
government's side speaks of ''the baby.''
The other side sometimes uses the term ''fetus,''
but often refers to it as ''the pregnancy.''
During
the banned procedure, the anti-abortion
side says, the baby is ''partially delivered'';
the other side says the fetus undergoes
''intact dilation and extraction.''
On
the stand in San Francisco, Dr. Maureen
Paul, the chief medical officer of Northern
California's Planned Parenthood chapter,
described how in a conventional abortion
not barred by the new law, doctors ''disarticulate''
the fetus. The other side often uses the
term ''dismember.''
Language
has always been a battleground in the debate
over abortion -- partisans prefer ''pro-life''
and ''pro-choice'' to the neutral terms
''anti-abortion'' and ''abortion rights.''
Abortion foes speak of the ''unborn child''
instead of, say, the ''fetus'' or ''pregnancy.''
''What
you're seeing is how intense the issue is
and how, over 30 years since Roe v. Wade,
the debate hasn't changed,'' said Edward
Lazarus, who in 1998 wrote ''Closed Chambers:
The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern
Supreme Court.'' ''Those supporting abortion
often depersonalize it and speak of it in
terms of a woman's choice and those against
abortion speak of its cruelty.''
In
one courtroom exchange last week, Planned
Parenthood attorney Eve Gartner said that
because of the new law, doctors may stop
doing abortions altogether to avoid risking
prosecution.
''It's
like having an elephant in the room with
you, wondering if some prosecutor is going
to interpret it in a certain way or not,''
she said.
Scott
Simpson, a Justice Department lawyer, countered:
''There's no elephant in the room. There's
a baby.''
The
judges have tentatively blocked the law
from being enforced while they consider
the legal challenges. Closing arguments
were held Friday in the San Francisco case,
and are planned for June in the Nebraska
case. The New York trial also continues.
|
