Dropping the “pro-choice” pretense

In 2021, a Planned Parenthood affiliate published an article encouraging abortion supporters to retire the phrase “pro-choice.” According to the article, the terminology “pro-choice, not pro-abortion” is especially problematic because it “implies that abortion isn’t a good thing.” Predictably, the article stressed it was “deeply stigmatizing” to suggest that abortion is “somehow bad.” Although the article received little attention at the time, the call to move beyond the rhetoric of “choice” and toward the open affirmation of abortion has increasingly been embraced by the broader pro-abortion movement.

This shift has been evident in recent political messaging. The 2024 Democratic platform did not use the term “pro-choice” even once. Instead, the 1,066-word section on abortion employed the euphemisms “reproductive rights” and “reproductive health care.” Similarly, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris referred to “reproductive freedom” on her campaign website. Planned Parenthood has also acknowledged this rhetorical shift. In a 2024 article, the organization argued that the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life” “don’t reflect the complexity of how most people actually think and feel about abortion,” noting that it no longer uses either term.

This evolution in messaging reflects more than a change in terminology. Evidently, many abortion advocates are not content to defend abortion as merely a matter of personal choice. Instead, they are working to normalize and even celebrate abortion as a morally praiseworthy social good. An ongoing lawsuit in California illustrates just how far some progressive leaders have moved in embracing an explicitly pro-abortion agenda.

In 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Heartbeat International and RealOptions for informing women about the possibility of reversing the effects of the abortion pill. If a woman has only taken the first drug in the two-drug abortion regimen (mifepristone, commonly known as “the abortion pill”), it is possible to reverse the abortion by taking the natural hormone progesterone. Initial studies demonstrate that abortion pill reversal (API) has a success rate of 64% to 68%.

Despite the success of API, Bonta claims that Heartbeat International and RealOptions are engaging in consumer fraud. Bonta, who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood in his current re-election bid, is seeking an injunction against the pro-life groups and up to $20 million in fines. After six weeks of trial proceedings this summer, on July 30, Bonta reiterated his view that API is “dangerous” and argued that those seeking to educate women about abortion reversal ought to be held “accountable.” Tellingly, Bonta’s press release directed readers to California Abortion Access, a state-run website that promotes abortion.

In a recent op-ed published by The Wall Street Journal, two prominent Catholic leaders in California—Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland—responded to Attorney General Bonta. According to the bishops, the ongoing lawsuit in California demonstrates the tragic reality that many progressive lawmakers do not truly want women to have a choice when it comes to abortion. “What kind of people see a pregnant woman who wants to reverse the effects of an abortion pill and think, ‘Let’s punish the nonprofits that informed her she has a choice’?” they asked.

The bishops refuted California’s adamant claims that API is “unproven” by telling the story of Elizabeth Barrett, a woman who was pressured to take mifepristone and then immediately regretted it. A frantic online search led her to Heartbeat International, where she learned about abortion reversal. Thankfully, the treatment worked, and Barrett subsequently gave birth to a healthy girl. “The state of California wants to be sure that such things never happen again,” the bishops warned.

Although abortion supporters have long argued that women deserve a choice when it comes to abortion, the recent actions of many progressive policymakers suggest that they do not really want women to have a choice. Emblematic of the shift from “pro-choice” to “pro-abortion,” the abortion industry increasingly offers one option: abortion. According to the numbers provided by Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report, 97% of patients seeking help related to their pregnancy were offered abortion. In contrast, only 1.7% received prenatal services, 0.6% received miscarriage care, and 0.7% received an adoption referral.

In her case, Barrett, who had previously supported and even donated to Planned Parenthood, told clinic workers that she might want to keep her baby. “I thought for sure that staff at the clinic would help me out,” she recalled. Instead, clinic workers urged her to take the abortion pill, even warning her that if she delayed, she might not get another appointment.

Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, Bonta stated, “When it comes to abortion care, it’s your body and your right to choose.” However, it seems Bonta and other lawmakers like him only support choice if the choice is abortion. As the two Catholic bishops asked in their op-ed, “Are they really pro-choice, or do they just like killing?” Sadly, the recent rhetoric and actions of abortion-supporting politicians provide a chilling answer. They demand abortion, not choice.