Vocabulary lesson and a judicial injunction

Today, boys and girls, we learn a new word: dysphemism.

Dysphemism is basically the opposite of euphemism. Euphemism, you recall, is the substitution of a "mild, indirect, or vague term for one that is considered harsh, blunt, or offensive." For example, relieving oneself is a euphemistic expression for urinating. One often uses euphemisms to mask or tone down unflattering or objectionable positions one holds.

By contrast, dysphemism is "the substitution of a harsh, disparaging, or unpleasant expression for a more neutral one." For example, taking a piss is a dysphemistic expression for urinating.

Euphemistic and dysphemistic expressions can both indicate bias—perhaps more so with dysphemisms, because they deliberately substitute loaded expressions for more neutral ones, and can therefore evince an intent to inflame. Thus we have Donald Trump referring to the "Chinese virus," at a time when expressions such as "novel coronavirus" or even just "coronavirus," and (the more technical) "SARS-CoV-2," were used by experts and public health authorities for the virus itself, and "Covid-19" for the disease caused by the virus. By using the dysphemistic "Chinese virus," Trump intended to cast (and divert) blame, and to denigrate one party (China), at a time when he was ostensibly communicating information to citizens about the state of the pandemic, and the government's response.

In that manner did Trump, as is his wont, inject some measure both of gratuitous conflict and buck-passing into what arguably should have been a more neutral and dignified account by the president of where the country stood relative to the pandemic. One might well expect that a high official in government communicating on a serious matter would confine himself to descriptive terminology that's been adopted by the appropriate experts, and that's in widespread use by other relevant organs and institutions such as the press. Not using such terminology communicates dysphemistic intent: a ratcheting up of tension and aspersion.

Trump's followers were unsurprisingly quick to pick up Trump's usage and run with it. Thus did I receive an email from one right-winger referring to the "Communist Chinese Wuhan coronavirus." And thus, too, were persons of Asian descent accosted with widespread taunts and even violent attacks on America's streets. That's how these things go, and it shows how and why words matter.

Very timely examples of dysphemism are contained in a federal judge's just-released nationwide injunction on the distribution of the abortion medication mifepristone. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk refuses to use neutral and technically correct terms such as "fetus," referring instead to "unborn humans" in his ruling. He also makes one reference to "unborn children" and another to "aborted children." The judge excuses his usage by writing that "fetus" does not encompass other (earlier) gestational stages, but that's a dodge. The neutral and technically correct "embryo or fetus" would be a proper and economical use of language, would be more appropriate in a judicial opinion, and would cover all cases concerning the administration of the drug in question.

But terminating (my euphemism for killing?) a fetus or embryo seems less disturbing than terminating a human and certainly a child, whether born or not. It seems the judge is in part verbally elevating and then condemning the act of killing, not just the process by which the drug was approved 23 years ago. To state what should be obvious, that is not his proper role. Moreover, "unborn human" is not a scientifically neutral term, but rather one that immediately evokes intensely contested philosophical and especially religious connotations that are unhelpful in an opinion about whether the FDA acted appropriately in the approval process. All this in a context in which the judge's strong longstanding religious opposition to abortion has been widely reported. The judge seems bent on imposing his beliefs on everybody.

Likewise, the judge dysphemistically refers to "chemical abortion" rather than "medication abortion" or, as it's often referred to in the media, "medical abortion." While it is trivially true that medications are generally chemicals, the term "chemical abortion" is used overwhelmingly by the anti-abortion movement but seldom, if ever, outside it. Through his use of terminology, the judge transparently and inappropriately indicates what side he's on.

You can see this for yourself by performing the Google search "chemical abortion". Pay attention to who uses which terms. When I did so just now, I found a link to a Kaiser Family Foundation article entitled The Availability and Use of Medical Abortion. There's a link to Medical Abortion, Conditions and Treatments at UCSF Health (University of California San Franciso). At Cleveland Clinic we have Medical Abortion: What Is It, Types, Risks & Recovery. All mainstream medical resources employing widely used neutral terminology.

Then there's Fact Sheet: Risks and Complications of Chemical Abortion from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion organization. Next is Chemical Abortion: A Review from the conservative Heritage Foundation. See the pattern?

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a professional organization with 60,000 members, refers to "Medication," not "Chemical" abortion. So does the Association of American Medical Colleges. The National Institutes of Health refers to "Medical abortion," as does UCLA Health. And so forth.

When we search Google for "chemical" vs. "medical" abortion, we see Important Truths Women Are Not Told About Chemical Abortions from Options Now, a pro-life group. There's Chemical Abortion from Students for Life of America.

You might think the American College of Pediatricians' Chemical Abortions: With and Without Medical Supervision conveys professional legitimacy to the term, but you'd be wrong. The American College of Pediatricians is, according to Wikipedia, "a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals" with just several hundred members. The Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-hate organization, refers to it as "a fringe anti-LGBTQ hate group that masquerades as the premier U.S. association of pediatricians to push anti-LGBTQ junk science."

For his part, Judge Kacsmaryk footnotes A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, by James Studinicki, in Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. Finally, we see the term "chemical abortion" in a real medical journal! But not so fast. Dr. Studinicki is a member of —you guessed it—the Charlotte Lozier Institute. I have not found any usage of  "chemical abortion" outside anti-abortion advocacy groups or individuals.

It's telling that Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling reeks throughout of references to the "chemical abortion" dysphemism used exclusively by anti-abortion activists. The conventional "medication abortion" and "medical abortion" are nowhere to be found, even though you'd think that a judicial opinion on FDA process would use conventional terminology. Indeed, critics of Judge Kacsmaryk's opinion say he seems to have adopted the plaintiff's opinions, conclusions, and, yes, terminology, in sweeping wholesale fashion.

I said above that dysphemisms can signal bias, and we clearly see how that is so in the judge's ruling. Judge Kacsmaryk is himself a longtime anti-abortion activist. His ruling, which by all rights ought to be overturned on appeal, might have slightly better prospects if it didn't telegraph the judge's personal biases so strongly. A more judicious use of language would have helped his case by better disguising that bias. On the other hand, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, the thing, flawed as it is—especially on the merits (which we've not gotten to here)—may well stand. It will be fascinating to see how this develops.

Copyright (C) 2023 James Michael Brennan, All Rights Reserved

The latest from Does It Hurt To Think? is here.