Talking About Abortion: The Language and Imagery We Use Matters

During the Trump administration, multiple myths and pieces of misinformation about abortion were widely circulated. While states were gearing up to pass the first round of near total `abortion bans, Physicians for Reproductive Health was building a comprehensive guide to gold-standard language when talking about abortion care. Kelsey Rhodes, leader of communications work at Physicians for Reproductive Health, sits down to discuss how to talk about abortion in the most inclusive, compassionate, and fact-based way and why it’s important.  Gender inclusivity is incredibly important when talking about any type of healthcare, and particularly so in sexual and reproductive healthcare. Women, indeed, do need to be able to receive full-spectrum reproductive health care, but they do not represent every single person that should be able to access this type of care. Language that only centers “mothers,” and “women,” leave out folks of other gender orientations that also receive and deserve this kind of care, including transgender and nonbinary folks. The fight for abortion rights and transgender rights often intersects, and many abortion providers also provider gender-affirming care. Speaking about abortion means intentionally including the experiences of transgender and nonbinary individuals.  The sound that people will hear at six weeks of gestation (if they are forced to listen to their ultrasound) is the medically proven electro cardiac activity of cells that one day could become a heart. The anti-abortion movement used that sound to signify “life” at six weeks of gestation, underlying the term “heartbeat ban.” “Heartbeat ban” gets repeated frequently by anti-abortion legislators, and by journalists who are reporting on new state-based legislation that restricts abortion. This term is intentionally used to create an emotional, visceral response. Journalists have a responsibility to report accurate information about abortion care and fact-check against myths like “abortion reversal,” The coat hanger image refers to a time in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, in which people who wished to end their own pregnancies turned to clandestine methods of abortion because they could not access care. Using coat hanger imagery now does not reflect the time in history we are in now, which includes incredibly safe, scientifically advanced, modern methods of abortion care, such as medication abortion. Using coat hanger imagery paints a false picture of the physical safety and reliability of abortion care today, especially self-managed abortion. Similarly, Handmaid’s Tale imagery advances a fictional narrative that doesn’t accurately reflect how systems of oppression in this country disproportionately impact Black, brown, queer, and immigrant communities. The story centers white women and equates a fictional world to the real-time, lived experiences of those whose reproductive health and rights are being systematically oppressed across the country. LinksPhysicians for Reproductive Health on TwitterPhysicians for Reproductive Health on FacebookPhysicians for Reproductive Health Guide on Language for ReportersFor more information, check out When Science Finds a Way: https://wellcome.org/insights/podcastSupport the showFollow Us on Social: Twitter: @rePROsFightBack Instagram: @reprosfbFacebook: rePROs Fight Back Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.socialBuy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store Email us: [email protected] and Review on Apple PodcastThanks for listening & keep fighting back!