Today’s newsletter is a video interview I did with author
. Below is a transcript, edited for length and clarity. Enjoy! —ParkerParker Molloy: Welcome to The Present Age. I'm Parker Molloy. I'm joined today by author Jessica Valenti. Jessica writes the Abortion Every Day newsletter. Her latest book, Abortion: Our Bodies, Their Lies, and the Truths We Use to Win, is out now. Jessica, hello.
Jessica Valenti: Hi, how are you?
I'm doing okay! I'm so happy to finally talk face-to-face with you.
I know. It's funny—I was trying to think about how long we've been chatting online in one way or another, and it's been years and years, obviously. So it's always nice to feel like it's real life.
Yeah, it's really weird. It's weird to be like, "It's so nice to meet you," to someone I've talked to for 12 years or whatever.
I know.
But yeah, I thought this would be a great chance for us to talk because I got a copy of your book, and I really enjoyed it. One chapter that felt particularly relevant to what I try to do here is Chapter Three: "‘Pro-Life’ Language Is a Sham." That chapter—the whole time I'm reading it, I'm just nodding up and down, like, "Yes, yes, that."
In that chapter, you talk about how conservatives effectively won the decades-long language war to be branded "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion," but are now retreating from "pro-life." Another example you mention is this new tendency to use euphemisms for the word "ban." Can you tell me a little bit more about that?
Sure. As you said, I know this is something that you've been tracking for a really long time. I think for us, it's something that seems so obvious. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And once you know what words they're using in place of "ban," you sort of see it everywhere.
When I started
, that was one of the things I noticed right away—this really insidious use of language, attacks on language. And it really did start with "ban." I saw that they really didn't want to use the word "ban" at all. At first, they weren't explicit about it. Then they sort of said, "No, we're not using 'ban.' We don't use 'ban' because there are no abortion bans in America." This is their whole thing—they say that "ban" means total ban without any exceptions, even for a person's life, and therefore Texas doesn't have an abortion ban; Tennessee doesn't have an abortion ban.
Instead, they'll use language like "consensus," "standard," "restriction," and always "reasonable restriction," right? And it's really deliberate because bans are incredibly unpopular. Americans really, really overwhelmingly do not like abortion bans. And that's why they're using language like "consensus," for example, because it gives the impression that actually lots of people want these.
It's in everything they do. The thing that gives me a little bit of hope with it—it's really frustrating to watch—but the thing that gives me a little bit of hope is that all of those language changes are on the defensive, right? They can't stand behind their politics, and so they're trying to change the language around it.
Yeah, and I think that one of the things that they get a lot of help from is from the media. Many news outlets kind of prioritize this sort of "both sides" approach, often giving equal weight to anti-abortion talking points. Do you think this pursuit of neutrality ends up favoring the right's manipulation of language? And how should journalists balance fairness with factual accuracy in the abortion debate?
I do. I think that journalists and mainstream media publications are—maybe not deliberately—but are their greatest ally in this war on language, particularly when it comes to certain so-called controversial issues. We know abortion is not actually controversial. Their hope is that by giving equal column inches, by giving equal space, they are somehow being unbiased. But the truth is that actually those are biased decisions; those are political decisions.
If you put the word "ban" in scare quotes in a headline, that's a political decision. And it's something that they really are winning at. When I started warning about the word "ban," I said, "The thing I'm worried about is that they're not just doing this in their own quotes, but that they are launching this attack on media and journalists and saying, 'If you use the word "ban," you're biased.'" Like, that's proof of bias. And because mainstream media outlets are so, so concerned about appearing biased, it was a really easy attack for them. They sort of went along with it right away.
I think the thing that has changed, or the thing I've been glad to see at least, is that when you call them out, people are noticing it more. And so I think they are realizing what's going on to some extent.
Sure. Yeah, and I think that in talking to people in the media kind of more generally, the argument that I see put back is, “Well, if this language isn't correct, Democrats should speak more on it.” But the issue is that Democrats are so afraid to speak about abortion just generally, especially when you start getting into the deeper language that gets pushed.
In the book you discuss how the term "partial-birth abortion" gained traction despite being totally medically inaccurate. What do you think it says about our political discourse that a fabricated term can become so embedded in public consciousness?
It's really troubling, and I think you get it exactly right. Democrats have been so afraid of digging a little deeper on abortion and going beyond their standard talking points. I think we are seeing that change a bit just in the last few months; we're seeing some language changes. We have a presidential candidate who's not afraid to use the word "abortion," thank goodness.
But for so long, this was a third-rail issue. Again, even though abortion rights are extraordinarily popular, Democrats were sort of nervous to talk about it as such. And so we're left with the right just winning and winning and winning again and again and us not pushing back.
I think sort of the latest example of that is "post-birth abortion," right? This completely bizarre, fabricated thing that Trump talks about a lot. Democrats will sort of be like, "That's not a thing," and move on, but they won't dig into it. They won't dig into where that really comes from because they're so afraid to talk about abortions later in pregnancy.
But if we actually talked about where "post-birth abortion" comes from—which is they're describing palliative care for fatally ill newborns—Americans would respond to that, right? That is something Americans deserve to know and I think is actually one of our most powerful potential talking points that we're sort of leaving behind.
Definitely. As far as Democrats can do—or any politician that sees themselves as an ally or an advocate for abortion—what would an honest, effective conversation, politically speaking, about later abortions look like? What should they do?
That's a great question. I really think it comes down to, one, the overarching message of Americans don't want government involvement in pregnancy at all, right? This is not something that should ever be up to a politician, and Americans support that.
I think one of the things we've seen Democrats do when they're talking about abortion later in pregnancy is they either say it's completely rare, it almost never happens, and it's almost always these horrible tragic cases—both of which are true—but it doesn't help to combat the stigma, right? And it sort of leaves the door open for Republicans to say, "Well, we'll have exceptions for that. We'll have exceptions for people in these tragic situations." We need to have none of that, right? We're sort of handing them a little bit of a gift when we do that.
And the truth is, yes, a lot of these are tragic situations, but a lot of these abortions are also the result of Republican hurdles. And I think one of the biggest problems that Democrats have and one of the reasons that they won't go there is because they're still pushing restrictions. When they talk about "Restore Roe," they're talking about restoring something where later abortion patients couldn't get care or had to jump through ridiculous hoops in a horrific, really difficult time.
So I think that is part of the hesitancy—they're not willing to say, "Yeah, you know what? Sometimes people do need abortion care later in their pregnancy, and they should be able to get it." Until they're sort of willing to take that stance politically, it's harder for them to talk about it.
Yeah, absolutely. I think that one point that you make there is that by conceding things, by just going, "Well, it's rare," you're effectively saying, "It's rare, so if it's so rare, why not just ban this thing? Why not just ban abortions in the third trimester," say. Which, as you kind of talk about in the book, their definition of "late-term abortion" kind of means whatever they want it to mean.
And you also talk about how exceptions that they build in aren't really exceptions; they're almost impossible to use. I've seen that happen. I follow a lot of the discussion and the legislation that goes with trans rights, too, and it's similar in a lot of ways where Democrats are so afraid to kind of take up these issues that they concede things. They go, "I don't want to talk about sports," but it's not really about sports; it's about getting a foot in the door to start micromanaging how trans people can live their lives.
It's not really about "late-term abortions"; it's about getting some sort of restriction in that then you can kind of claw back at, and it just kind of works that way. You argue in your book that if we don't push back against terms like "abortion up until birth," they could become just as ingrained as "partial-birth abortion." So what strategy do you think would be effective in countering that type of language manipulation before it takes root?
I really do think that it is about going directly in and not being defensive but being proactive about it. I would love to see a politician say, "Trump keeps talking about 'post-birth abortion.' Let's talk about what this really means." We have to make it poisonous for them, right? They're trying to attack us in this way, but really it is an opening. We can make this poisonous for them—that whenever Trump says the term "post-birth abortion," people understand that what he's talking about is palliative care for newborns, parents' rights to decline medically invasive procedures for babies that are not going to survive.
Really, I think it's about telling the truth. And I think the point you make about the connection to trans rights and the same strategy is a really important one, because I don't think folks are making that connection often enough. I think one of the best places you see that is Democrats' hesitance to talk about young people, right? Whether it's gender-affirming care or abortions for younger people, conservatives know that Democrats get really worried; they're really nervous about talking about younger people.
But as you said, that is really how they get their foot in the door, right? They go after younger people first because they know that Democrats are going to be too afraid to fight 100% back, and then that becomes restrictions for all of us.
Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me. This has been great. Everyone should go get the book; it's a good book. I have it right here. It's a wonderful book. You can see I have all sorts of pages dog-eared. It's fantastic. It's great. But thanks again, Jessica.
Of course. Thank you.
How Media and Politicians Enable Anti-Abortion Rhetoric: A Conversation with Jessica Valenti