Religion & Law

Michael is right, of course, to imply that words matter and that it is often the case that a particular state of affairs can be described in different ways, to different effects.  As we all know, sometimes, things are described euphemistically, or misleadingly, in order to paper over their unattractiveness (e.g., "termination of a pregnancy", "evacuation of cranial contents"; "dilation and extraction"; "reproductive rights"; "uterine contents", etc.). 

Michael is wrong, though, if he thinks that his proposed headline ("The Obama Administration opposes the criminalization of abortion as, all things considered, a fitting way to respond to the tragedy of unwanted pregnancies") better describes the relevant situation than does the headline of the story to which I linked (or, for that matter, the headline of my own post).

The call for "universal access" is not merely a call for decriminalization; it is also a call for (among other things) the elimination of a wide range of regulations of abortion and for increased public funding of abortion.  "Access"-talk (like "choice"-talk) is, in this context, euphemistic and obfusctatory.  In any event, even if it were the case -- and it is not -- that the Administration is urging merely the worldwide, complete "decriminalization" of abortion, it would still be the case that this call would be cause for concern and regret by those who believe in the dignity of the human person.