'Language is not just powerful, it is a very strong weapon." So said Renua Senator Paul Bradford, who last week decided, "There are no such babies as babies with fatal foetal abnormalities."
It would be easy to brush Bradford’s statement off as ridiculous, especially given that, as a political entity, Renua borders on irrelevant. But his remarks in the Seanad are the latest in a line of callous and offensive statements related to women and our bodies. Isn’t it funny how those who position themselves as morally superior offer up such cruel language? It was also a reminder, that in the debate on abortion, no matter how many women bravely offer up their own experiences, they are slapped down. We are reminded that we do not know our own bodies, especially not our own reproductive organs. Our wombs are things comedian Gráinne Maguire calls “Ireland’s littlest embassy.”
Many in the current political establishment play nonsense with the language of abortion. Personally, I believe there is no ambiguity to what needs to be done. The eighth amendment needs to be repealed as a matter of urgency, and free, safe and legal abortion should be available to Irish women who choose it. Irish women and their doctors should not be criminalised for making medical decisions, nor should women have to travel to other countries to have abortions. But politicians want more language, and the solution is to prolong the "debate". Enda Kenny may think he has come up with a brilliantly sly way of circumventing leadership on the issue by promising a "citizens' assembly", and you can imagine the triumphant brow-wiping when he came up with that one. Phew! Kenny's pussyfooting has reached such a level of deftness that if he's not taoiseach in the next government, he's a sure thing for Strictly Come Dancing.
Fine Gael's shirking needs to be called out. A citizen's assembly might sound nice, and it'll make for good PR, but Fine Gael's tactics have all the authenticity of marketeers. What we need on abortion is political leadership. It can certainly be argued that putting marriage equality to the Constitutional Convention was a way of political parties shirking responsibility and instead opting for the protective stance that "the convention told us to do it!" But the debate on marriage equality was also a new one, and needed to be teased out. Abortion, on the other hand, is not a novel concept. The debate on abortion in this country is depressingly old. Fine Gael says a citizens' assembly is a good idea but, in place of taking leadership on the issue, they've kicked it into touch. Meanwhile, women have to wait. Our bodies remain the tools of political tacticians.
Terrible communication
Even the most expert political communicator is floundering.
Leo Varadkar
has long been perceived as someone who cuts to the chase. As Minister for Health, his usual ability to articulate is fading, and when talking about the health system, he now adopts the stance of a commentator, as if he’s not the person actually in charge. But on abortion, his communication has been terrible. Now positioning himself as “pro-life”, Varadkar is busy muttering about his doubts and fears about removing the eighth amendment. Politicians such as Varadkar muse in ambiguous and hypothetical ways about what on earth would happen if the amendment was removed from our Constitution. Why? Aren’t they responsible for making legislation?
Nobody knows the power of language more than anti-choice campaigners, who use terms such as “murder” and “killing”, while denying medicine and women’s rights. They have triumphed by repeating the term “on demand” until it became media vernacular. But “on demand” is a meaningless term. On Pat Kenny’s Newstalk programme last Thursday, a brave woman outlined her experience of abortion after she was raped. The inevitable question about abortion “on demand” came up, and she rightfully queried it. We don’t hear about lung transplants on demand for chronic smokers, she said, nor dialysis on demand. Women are not toddlers demanding this and that, she said. What anti-choice campaigners want you to think is “on demand” means silly-billy women will flock to have abortions just because it’s available. As if. How insulting to women to insinuate they would make a serious decision about a pregnancy with such frivolity.
Power of language
When it comes to language, pro-choice campaigners are constantly asked to back up their arguments with personal experiences, polling, medical arguments, human rights arguments, comparative studies from other countries and so on. Anti-choice campaigners are free to use inflammatory arguments without broadcasters and journalists questioning what is often the actual basis of their arguments: religious beliefs. If someone believes abortion is murder because the Bible or clergy tells them so, they are entitled to believe that. But what they are not entitled to is to use religious beliefs as leverage to inform legislation that impacts us all.
Why do broadcasters and journalists never question that? It’s our job to examine the power of language too.