Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, or something else?

Abortion and contraceptives have always been one of the most controversial social issues and it is the same way in Missouri. The issue is even more prominent now after Todd Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape.” While this issue, like others, still falls behind the economy and job creation both candidates have shown their stances on the issue.  

For Nixon, he follows most liberals by being pro-choice and pro-contraception. Nixon showed this belief this past summer when he vetoed a bill that would allow religious institutions to not comply with the new federal mandate that birth control and other reproductive health procedures, including abortions, must be covered by health insurance policies. The language he used to explain why he vetoed the bill was quite interesting. In his explanation, Nixon went out of his way to make it clear that he did not see this bill as a religious or first amendment issues that some were making it out to be. He instead claimed that his reasoning for vetoing the bill was that the new measure would put a large amount of power in the hands of insurance companies. Nixon felt that that the amount of power was too much. Missouri’s legislature voted to override Nixon’s veto this September.

Nixon is trying to avoid this being an issue about religious freedom and first amendment rights, which didn't happen. What makes his response so interesting is that he has gone on record saying that he did not agree with federally mandated health insurance, yet he is supporting a mandate that controls how insurance companies and businesses provide coverage for patients.

When it comes to abortion, Nixon is trying to reach across party lines. Last year, he allowed the veto deadline on a bill that places restriction on late term abortions after 20 weeks pass. However this brought some backlash from his party, because he simply let the bill pass without his signature and did not openly endorse or veto it. In this situation, Nixon is trying to show he can be bipartisan and wants to work with both sides to create a better Missouri.

Spence’s stances on the issues are displayed on his site with his other conservative values. But like many other republicans, Spence is shying away from the subject since Akin’s gaffe. Spence has also been silent on his opinion about whether Akin should haves stopped his campaign. However, Spence was not silent when it came to Nixon vetoing the birth control bill. He blasted the governor for siding with Planned Parenthood and saying that that is not what Missouri wants.

Spence is trying to instill doubt in the people of Missouri by claiming that Nixon does not know what the people of Missouri want and that he does not care about our first amendment rights. Since this is such a controversial issue, this attack could be dangerous to Nixon. Not only will it alienate people who are against birth control use, but also others who see the veto as religious groups having their rights infringed upon.

In journalism, the coverage of abortion control and birth control really comes down to three terms. Pro-choice, Pro-life, and Anti-Abortionist. These terms define a person’s stance on the issue. Pro-choice is always used to describe those who are for abortion and birth control. On the other hand, pro-life and anti-abortionist are used interchangeably to describe the side that opposes abortion. The issue here is that one of the terms has a negative connotation. This allows journalists to show their personal views on the topic by which term they use. They can also influence the public based on which term they used. A term with a negative connotation, such as anti, automatically seem worse to people. While the use of these terms is not being influenced by politicians, it is still an example of how the media can influence the public.