Framing proposal: The Safe Pregnancy Initiative

While it could be said that all of the items your list for the agenda associated with your proposed terminology fit, "abortion" requires quite a stretch. Maybe a bigger stretch than the "Clear Skies" (see below), even. I think that associating a subset of your agenda with this phrase would be more persuasive to probing minds and more likely to result in good legislation. The items in particular that I think would be good to include would be:
. protection against violence to women (though I question the need for a new law in this area; I think that the laws already on the books are clear enough, and that physical abuse against pregnant women is likely to receive greater attention and sympathy from the press {if she chooses to make it public}, the office of the District Attorney, and juries. Whatever difficulty there is in enforcing the law in these cases is almost invariably the problem of getting the women in question to press charges. After all, if she feels she is dependent on him for keeping the herself, her other children and her future child fed and sheltered, pressing charges against him will naturally appear to be against her better interest.)
. universal pre-natal care
. universal sex and reproductive education (iffy, but worth a shot)

To be honest, I do not believe that it is possible to frame abortion in terms that will be acceptable to people with the "stern father" mentality. Forcing a woman to carry a baby to term because she got pregnant is a clear example of something that fits into that paradigm.

The question that naturally follows is, "If it is good language, who will give it voice?" I am hoping to find an answer on how to address that issue inside "thinking points" once I finish the books I am currently reading, but I doubt that I will. I know that sending comments promoting it to my state or federal representatives would be a waste of time, and do not know how effectively introduce such language so that it might enter into broad circulation.

META-ISSUES: should the Rockridge Institute web site have a section related to "action efforts" so that language that has been honed and refined--possibly been the subject of polls and focus groups--might be grouped together for reference by progressive legislators? Should part of this web site detail procedures for conducting and collaborating on grass-roots polling, data gathering, and analysis? And, I'll include the obligatory whine that there is no place for constructive criticizm of the design of the web site, to pose questions about Rockridge Institute priorities and to help work to address those priorities.

=======================================================================================
If you are unfamiliar with the Bush0.43's "Clear Skies" initiative, it is a beautiful example of doublespeak framing. Here are some resources.
progressive group opposition: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp generally neutral presentation: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0225/p02s02-uspo.html short summary and current status: http://www.aaenvironment.com/ClearSkies.htm
a primary source: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.131:

Kencomer, thanks for your good thoughts. Do others have insights or opinions on this idea?

Let me address the comments in your first paragraph regarding violence to women. I think this is an important plank in this platform because it addresses the need to consider pregnancies that occur without the woman's consent.

Also, I think that our job here is to create, hone and expand language and thought and politicians who understandn and want to adopt these frames will create appropriate legislation.

The problem with using "violence against women" to cover the context of "pregnancy without consent" is two-fold: first, if you include in your bill that it is to address cases of "rape and incest" because these are instances when a pregnancy without consent that a Godly stern father would disapprove of, then that's likely to be the whole of what is covered. The large portions of those accidental pregnancies without consent would become "deliveries without consent".

=============================================================================================

Your impression of our "job" here is part of one that I would like to think that it has, but your assertion that politicians who understand and adopt these frames will be better able to create useful legislation (pardon my paraphrase) leaves a very large gap unexplained. How would this site assist in completion of that "job"?

It sounds like you took a few pages from the "Democrats for Life" playbook here. I'm a member of the organization (and the Illinois chapter) myself, and most of what you propose is already part of their "95-10 Initiative"

check it out (www.democratsforlife.org)!

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs within the organization concerning the legality of abortion, but we all pretty much agree that it is MUCH more productive to deal with the issue from the "demand side" rather than spin our wheels about morality (which as many have indicated, hasn't prevented too many abortions in the first place!).

It's a shame that so many claim to be "pro-life" without wanting to provide adequate support (in the ways that you mentioned in your original posting) for women who do make what they consider to be the "right choice". You're right -- the debate does need to be cast in a new and more nurturing and progressive frame -- both for mothers and their children, equally!