Public Square: Forgetting the Least of These

The words that we use betray our convictions.  The divide over the issue of abortion in our culture highlights this well.  In the public arena, which is controlled by secular media, those who support abortion are referred to as "pro-choice" or, more recently, "pro-reproductive rights"  On the other hand, those who are opposed to abortion are rarely portrayed as "pro" anything, especially "pro-life."  Instead, they are labeled as "anti-abortion rights" or "anti-choice."  Our acceptance of these terms has played no small part in the shift in American attitudes about abortion.

The power of words in the struggle for the sanctity of human life struck me this week as I was listening to a news story about a pharmacist who was being accused of professional misconduct for refusing to fill prescriptions for "emergency contraceptive medicine."  This pharmacist cited religious and moral objections to providing a drug that was designed to induce an abortion (i.e., an abortifacient).  Dismissing the issues of conscience, the reporter cast the story in a particular light (in which the pharmacist shone poorly) by intentionally avoiding the word "abortifacient" and using the phrase "emergency contraceptive medicine" even though the phrase is grossly misleading.  In the first place, one has to question how the word "emergency" can be used in conjunction with contraception.  The nature of this word used in this context is highly suspect.  It masks the reality that contraception is not the issue at all.  What makes the matter an "emergency" is the probability (indeed, the likelihood) that conception has already taken place.  In light of that probability, the word "contraceptive" is a misleading description of the drug in question.  It is clearly designed to destroy what has been conceived, not prevent a conception.  It destroys life.  It does harm.  Therefore, it is not a medicine, for medicines are intended to heal and do good.

But there's a bigger problem.  At the same time we are bristling at the phrase "emergency contraceptive medicine," those who are pro-life have entered the public square to speak out against government intrusion into matters of religious conscience.  Unfortunately, the way in which we've spoken out has obscured the issue and we've played into the hands of the hostile media.  Our protestations that this is not about "reproductive rights" has shifted us further away from defending the lives of those in our society who are most vulnerable and at the greatest risk of exploitation.  In our concern over protecting our religious freedoms we have further diminished our defense of the unborn.  Despite the words that we are using to justify raising our voices on our own behalf, we have once again failed to make the necessary sacrifices on behalf of the least of these.