The goal is not simply to expand access to abortions but to demolish any restrictions placed upon the body by human nature.
The goal is not simply to expand access to abortions but to demolish any restrictions placed upon the body by human nature.
R ecently, NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) Pro-Choice America decided to change its name for the fourth time in the organization’s history, a move that was inevitably highlighted by the New York Times. The new moniker? Reproductive Freedom for All.
Since the organization’s beginning, each name change has marked a significant shift in the Left’s approach to the politics of abortion. The group started out as the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws in 1969. After Roe was decided in 1973, it became the National Abortion Rights Action League. Reproductive Rights was added to its name in 1993. In 2003, just in time for the 2004 presidential election, the group took on the name “NARAL Pro-Choice America.”
These name changes display the Left’s development of doctrine on abortion over the past several decades. Pre-Roe, abortion laws were viewed as a burden on suffering women that needed to be repealed. Post-Roe, access to abortion was deemed a constitutional right. In the ’90s, there was a movement away from the term “abortion” itself and toward words with positive connotations (e.g., “reproductive rights” and “women’s health”). And then, of course, in the 2000s, “Pro-Choice” became a phrase ubiquitous with the political movement.
But now, the tides are turning once again. According to Mini Timmaraju, NARAL’s president, as quoted by the Times:
“Pro-choice” does not resonate with the moderate, younger and male voters who have become more engaged since the Supreme Court ended the nationwide right to abortion last year. . . . The group’s old name also failed, she said, to reflect the work of Black and Hispanic women long on the front lines of the fight for abortion access. “NARAL is incredibly resonant for the political world, but we’re not necessarily in the business anymore of just winning political opinion within elected officials and policymakers,” Ms. Timmaraju said. “We are now in a much bigger fight for the heart and soul of the American people and those are folks who are brand-new to the abortion debate.”
Well, at least she’s honest? There is undoubtedly a much bigger fight at hand. The shift of names mirrors a shift in the underlying philosophy on the left. It’s not merely a question of whether a woman is allowed to receive an abortion. Ultimately, it’s not about women or abortions at all. It’s about Liberation, pure and simple. What was once packaged as a women’s-rights issue is now being rebranded as an Oppressor vs. Oppressed issue. The question of autonomy lies at the core of the debate.
Do human beings have total autonomy over their bodies (or the bodies inside their own)? Or are there natural limits to such autonomy that the state has a duty to enforce? “Reproductive Freedom for All” (markedly “for All,” not just “for Women”) signals the embrace of total bodily autonomy.
These days, the question has moved far beyond the once-salient political argument of “young women in bad straits should be able to get abortions.” In a strange twist of fate, the Left seems to apply the same arguments used in support of chattel slavery to the human body — i.e., “It’s my property; I can do what I want with it.” I believe the human body is more sacred than that.
I must applaud the consistency of “Reproductive Freedom for All.” In its mission to support individual autonomy everywhere and always, “the group plans to increase its focus on state organizing and to adopt a broader approach, joining causes like eliminating the Senate filibuster, supporting voting rights and expanding the Supreme Court,” according to the Times. The goal of the organization is not simply to expand access to abortions, but to take political action that would demolish any restrictions placed upon the body by human nature.
The Left is not the only side looking at a rebrand. Republicans are considering moving away from the “pro-life” term as its political popularity has diminished of late. Particularly, the term signifies to many voters the support of a total ban on abortion everywhere and in every case. While this position may be intellectually consistent, it is not politically viable. However, moderate restrictions on abortion have the potential to become federal law. A recent Cygnal poll reveals that “56% of voters support a federal abortion limit of 15 weeks (23% oppose; 21% unsure), including a plurality of Democrats.” Whether this kind of compromise is viewed as a win or a loss depends on the Republican you’re talking to — Nikki Haley and Mike Pence famously sparred over this point in the first presidential debate.
In the nontrivial realm of semantics, the Left has historically trumped the Right. In the context of the abortion debate, the Left triumphantly crafted the media-standard term “anti-abortion” to replace the term “pro-life.” This is my prediction: As in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, physician-assisted suicide, transgender surgery, and body modifications become more accessible and widespread because of the natural progress of modern technology, the pro-life position will have to expand to protect the integrity of the human person. While Republicans have yet to find a better term than “pro-life,” the rapidly shifting cultural norms about the human body might accelerate the process.