|
From Racket to
Reason:
Reversing the Corruption of Language
and the Corrosion of
Thought
By Gloria Feldt, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of
America
and Planned Parenthood Action Fund
This is a reprint of Gloria Feldt's address to journalists at
the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on June 18, 1999.
I'm having a flashback to the last time I stood at this podium. It
was three years ago—my 3rd day as Planned Parenthood's National President.
How gutsy was that? Today, my adrenaline isn't pumping quite as hard. But
the passion I bring is even greater. My message comes from a broader,
deeper perspective. I've learned so much—and so much of it from you. I
more fully appreciate the power you have to shape public debate, to move
vital issues into the public consciousness. I've also learned how easily
the issues can get lost.
I recently heard my Texas colleague Liz
Carpenter, Lyndon Johnson's Press Secretary, tell of being on a talk show
to promote a new book. She was sharing the stage with a seeing-eye dog and
a dog trained for the hearing impaired. The dogs took an instant dislike
to each other and barked at ear-splitting volume. Not a word could be
heard. She could just as well have been on the McLaughlin Group.
In this age of 24-hour news, never has so much airtime and ink
been given to political discourse. Never has the voting public been less
engaged in politics. And I'm not just counting the ironies. These two are
related. I want to examine the barking that often passes for political
debate. To discuss how words are used—and misused—and the effect this has
on the political process and, more importantly, on our lives. Mostly, I
want to talk about solutions…how we can work together to turn racket to
reason...reverse the corruption of language...the corrosion of
thought.
You all make your living by using words. You know how
language forms us as it informs us. Language creates context—shapes and
defines how people think about issues. When "affirmative action" became
"reverse discrimination," redress for generations of racial and gender
oppression was set back. When the word "feminist" became demonized, women
demurred with "I'm not a feminist but..." Even many who asserted their
rights to equal opportunity and equal pay. Language shapes the public
debate that shapes public policy. Let's look at how women's reproductive
health and freedoms are damaged in the crossfire, through choice of
topics, choice of words, and choice of positioning.
Let's start
with choice of topics. The birth control pill is 40 years old. Yet oddly,
only one-third of insurance plans cover oral contraceptives for women.
Even fewer cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control. That's one
reason why women spend 68 percent more than men out of pocket for health
care. The Equity
in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act is designed
to rectify this injustice. Two and a half years after EPICC was
introduced, Congress has yet to enact it. So tell me, what did you hear
about EPICC or contraceptive coverage until Viagra hit the scene? I was so
glad for Viagra! Viagra made clear to almost everyone the fundamental
gender inequity in health insurance, because insurance plans were
immediately ready to cover Viagra.
Now I applaud Bob Dole for his
healthy messages about sexuality. Who'd of thought? But why did it take a
sexual performance issue for men to get media coverage about a
reproductive health issue for women? You get my point: choice of topics
has real-life consequences for people's health and reproductive choices.
Have you checked your health insurance policy lately?
By the way,
did you know that 35 states introduced contraceptive coverage bills in the
last year and there were 436 articles about that. Impressive, until you
see that only 26 states had so-called partial birth abortion bills yet the
articles on this topic numbered 3,891! It's easy to see how the public's
thinking has been influenced by the choice of topics.
Perhaps
you've also noticed that even when the issue is family planning,
anti-choice strategy is to create an abortion battle where none exists, if
you let them get away with it.
Year to year to year, funds for
international family planning, not one dime of which goes to abortion, is
attacked as though it were abortion funding. As a result, the United
States has relinquished its leadership role in this most essential health,
human rights, and economic development effort.
And that leads us to
choice of words. Under the guise of "objectivity," language can be
corrupted. Of course it's essential to present contrasting points of view.
But having a point of view is no license to distort the facts. For
example, you've heard of emergency contraception—a high dose of birth
control pills that substantially reduces the chance of pregnancy if taken
within 72 hours of intercourse. If every woman of reproductive age had
ready access to this emergency contraception, unintended pregnancy and
abortion could be cut in half—an outcome pro- and anti-choice groups could
rally around, or so you'd think. Yet anti-choice forces want to block
availability of emergency contraception. Language is their weapon. They
equate emergency contraception with—yes, of course abortion. That label,
or should I say libel, for emergency contraception has no support in law,
policy, or medicine. Yet the press frequently accords their claims equal
weight with the facts. Reporting falsehoods doesn't give the story
balance. It merely makes for bad reporting.
Some pharmacists elect
not to provide emergency contraception, citing a so-called "conscience
clause" —another abuse of language that deserves to be challenged. Whose
conscience? Whose conscience counts? What about the doctor whose
conscience says children should be planned and wanted? What about the
patient's conscience? Individuals have a right to their beliefs. But to
imply that one conscience sets the standard is absolutely a corrosion of
thought. When new reports parrot such inaccurate framing, how can
Americans think clearly about these issues?
There's no better
example than the verbal pyrotechnics over so-called "partial birth
abortion." This is not a medical term. It's a sound bite—a PR campaign
created to incite and confuse. And it has been diabolically successful.
Ralph Reed even acknowledged it was an explicit strategy to undercut the
primacy of the woman and make her secondary to the fetus.
Recently,
a public affairs director at a Planned Parenthood affiliate challenged an
editor at a major daily about its use of this term. The editor heard her
out, admitted the term wasn't correct, but said it was easier to use than
the alternatives. Another tragic example—corruption of language, corrosion
of thought.
Bans on abortion procedures sprang up across the
country. Planned Parenthood warned that the language was too vague that
doctors could be prosecuted for performing many types of abortion at all
stages of pregnancy. We were right. Eighteen courts have enjoined these
bans on these grounds alone.
I've talked about choice of topics and
choice of words. Language is not only what is said, but who says it—the
terms of engagement as well as the text—the messenger as well as the
message. Often, someone who takes a stance on the fringe of an issue is
give the opportunity to gain public exposure. In the eyes of the public,
the media has positioned him as a representative of the mainstream and an
authority on the issue.
I can't believe James Dobson, Jerry
Falwell, and Pat Robertson are the only religious figures willing to
discuss politics on camera. Perhaps inadvertently, Christian
fundamentalism has been positioned as the authentic American religion. Yet
there are thoughtful people of many faiths who could speak, would speak.
Indeed, Planned Parenthood has many in our Pro-Choice Clergy Network.
We'll put you in touch! The voices of the many people of strong faith who
support reproductive freedom, equality for women, the rights of gays and
lesbians, and other compelling issues deserve to be
heard.
Corrosion of thought also rears its head in how points of
view are defined. You'll remember the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. He
was gunned down last fall in his home in front of his wife and children.
The killers, still at large, believe it's legitimate to murder someone
with whom you disagree. I was asked to appear on a Network TV show to
discuss the murder and its implications. I was told it would not be a
debate. Why would there be a debate? There is no "other side" to
cold-blooded murder, right? How could democracy survive if there were
another side?
But by air time, the host had put a representative
from National Right To Life on to oppose me. "To be fair,"" she said.
Predictably, my opponent immediately tried to turn the program away from
the murder of a physician and into yet another abortion debate. Fairness,
my eye. I mean, would you have Trenchcoat Mafia members "debate" survivors
of the Littleton massacre? Or gay bashers to justify the murder of Matthew
Shepard? When the issue is murder, there is no other side!
Now I
love what Molly Ivins calls "the cacophony of democracy." Democracy cannot
survive unless we embrace controversy, learn from our differing
perspectives, and thereby clarify the issues. We need more argument, not
less. People should have the courage, the skills, and the opportunity to
air their beliefs. That's how society makes progress. But when TV networks
appear to legitimize people who support murder, when caring abortion
providers become "baby killers," when contraceptives—which prevent
abortion—become "human pesticides," true debate is frozen in fear. The
more bullies and screamers are allowed to corrupt the truth, to frame the
issues, the more ordinary Americans feel excluded from the debate or
choose to exclude themselves. And truth is relegated to the cutting room
floor.
Fact: 90 percent of Americans support family planning and
three-quarters would even spend more tax dollars on it. They agree that
without public funding, there will be more teen pregnancies, more sexually
transmitted infections, and higher rates of HIV/AIDS. People strongly
support sex education in schools. Two out of three believe abortion should
remain accessible to women. Public health experts agree that family
planning is one of history's greatest boons to the health of women and
children and to a sustainable world. Yet listen to the talk shows. Read
the newspapers. Family planning is defined by a biased minority as a plot
against "American values." It's the oldest political trick: incite the
public against one thing to distract them from another. Equate
contraception with abortion and maybe the public won't notice that you
oppose all contraceptives, and want to end family planning programs and
restrict access to reproductive health care.
So what do we do? How
can we ensure that language clarifies rather than corrupts? I yearn for
media coverage that digs deep—that brings clarity to real issues. And just
what is the real issue of choice? It's not a euphemism for abortion.
Choice is about making deliberate child bearing decisions, considering all
medical and moral options, without government interference. It's about
women having an equal place at life's table. It's about truly valuing
children.
Barbara Jordan called choice "a fundamental right of a
free people." This is why the debate is so passionate. Because it's about
our identity and our self-determination as human beings. If the issue were
only about abortion, why don't abortion opponents work with us to reduce
unintended pregnancy? Why aren't they clamoring for contraceptive
research, sex education, and universal access to family
planning?
Reporters often ask me, "Why don't you sit down with the
other side and find middle ground?" My answer is, "I would love to. The
middle ground is preventing unintended pregnancy. That's what reduces
abortions. Let's talk about that." That conversation would truly enable
language to conciliate—to further consensus building that builds
democracy.
Language can lift up public discourse. That is the hope
of democracy as envisioned by the founding fathers. Going from racket to
reason is a shared responsibility. No whining allowed. And individual
citizens bear a huge part of that responsibility.
The American
people can bring clarity to issues by speaking up and out for their
beliefs: people with families or who are planning to start families,
people who know what it means to cope with an unplanned pregnancy, who
value family planning, who value being able to choose abortion, who value
their right to make private childbearing decisions, solid citizens who
have bowed out of the political process or tuned out the media because
they can't stand the shouting—or because they've grown intimidated or
cynical from a public debate leaden with doublespeak and
manipulation.
My neighbor Cathy recently wrote me to express her
anger with Dr. Laura Schlessinger for lying about Planned Parenthood on
the radio. "What can you do about it?" she pleaded. She even sent me
Doctor Laura's address. Well, until people like Cathy take action
themselves, we aren't going to progress very far. Here's the hard truth.
Americans must participate if they want to protect their
freedom.
Planned Parenthood has a plan to help. We're engaging
citizens with our Responsible Choices Action Agenda.
Now, speaking
of language, don't think we didn't focus group the term "Responsible
Choices" to within an inch of its life! But I can assure you that
Responsible Choices is more than a sound bite. Responsibility "R" us, and
choices are what we're about.
Responsible Choices is our nationwide
service and advocacy agenda with these goals: increase services that
prevent unintended pregnancies, improve the quality of reproductive health
care, ensure access to abortion, deliver the messages that support this
agenda, and—through our Action Fund and PAC—deliver the votes that elect
candidates who support this agenda. Responsible Choices is turning racket
to reason.
The campaign started with two realizations: one, most
Americans believe what Planned Parenthood believes, but public discourse
and therefore public policy don't reflect that; two, if the majority is to
find the courage to back its convictions, Planned Parenthood must
re-connect its constituents with the democratic process by providing the
means to participate in the debate, and by doing so, enable them to change
laws and policies. We must influence who sits on school boards and city
councils—who votes in statehouses and in Congress. It's not rocket
science. It's basic democracy.
We're creating a social climate
that's safe for reproductive health care and education that's safe for
vigorous, but informed and reasoned discussion of these issues. And this
is so important. Because if you think these issues are complex now, they
will be even more so in the new millennium. There will be even more
choices and Planned Parenthood will be there at the forefront of new
ethical issues and new technologies. That's why we seek a climate that's
less vulnerable to the corruption of language, and shortsighted politics.
Why Planned Parenthood? People trust us. Not because our spin is better.
But because we provide services people need in the way they want to
receive them. We represent the substance that binds social
movements.
William Butler Yeats observed, "The best lack all
conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." Well,
Responsible Choices is about helping the best find their voices and put
some starch in their backbones.
We're putting an informed,
articulate, and committed populace in charge of its reproductive destiny.
It's a paradigm shift in how this movement thinks and works. Our
Responsible Choices volunteers will be active, vocal, and energized in a
renewed civic democracy.
So that's what we're doing to turn racket
to reason and reverse the corruption of language. Here's what we ask of
you. Be rigorous in choice of stories told, words used to frame and define
the issues, and how you position the arguments and select the messengers.
Remember, your daughters' and granddaughters' access to choices depends on
this.
You can create a framework in which controversy can rage
safely, free of egregious distortion. Focus on what issues are really
about. I'm eager to debate abortion when abortion is the topic. But
there's so much more to it and we're all the poorer when extremists are
allowed to define issues narrowly and inaccurately. Together Planned
Parenthood, the media, and the public must ensure vigorous, informed
debate—the kind the nation's founders had in mind. Debate that is intense,
but without the threat of violence. Debate that produces clarity and
consensus, not confusion and division. Debate that moves society forward,
because ultimately, that's the point of all debate: to achieve a nation in
which we can call ourselves free.
PPFA Web Site © 1999, Planned
Parenthood® Federation of America, Inc.
Use of this site
signifies your agreement to Terms of
Use |
|
