We commend the Guardian for your decision to no longer use the medically incorrect term “heartbeat bill” (Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans, 7 June) and for telling your readers why. You correctly identify this politically contrived language as inaccurate and misleading. We know it’s also very dangerous.
Abortion bans, waiting periods, informed consent requirements, bans on public funding, insurance prohibitions and unnecessary clinic regulations are not designed to protect women. They are crafted by anti-abortion extremists to deter women from accessing abortion and make it more difficult and burdensome to obtain.
Meanwhile, the US still has the highest maternal death rates among developed countries, and they continue to rise. This is a direct result of the religious right’s success in restricting access to healthcare, which includes the takeover of hospitals and other healthcare facilities by the Catholic church nationwide. If a woman doesn’t have access to a complete range of affordable health services, the maternal death rate goes up and the infant death rate also rises.
Phrases like “heartbeat bill” and “born-alive legislation” are being used by anti-abortion extremists to pressure lawmakers to pass extreme restrictions designed to attract a supreme court challenge to abortion rights and a reversal of Roe v Wade. Georgia’s version even included a provision that would allow parents to claim an embryo as a dependant on their taxes, and another that included the unborn in the national census.
The National Organization for Women is a leader in the national movement to demand that lawmakers correct their actions against reproductive freedom and enshrine women’s rights to bodily autonomy, healthcare and happiness. Thank you for helping us correct their language.
Toni Van Pelt
President, National Organization for Women
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
