We have previously noted how the credentialed media use control of language to try to influence the debate toward their favored positions, which always seem to be toward the left.

Twitter did so by prohibiting “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” Simply put, if someone wanted to tweet something about William Thomas, the male swimmer who claims to be female and is on the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim team using the name “Lia,” that person would have to concede to Mr Thomas’ claim that he is a woman by using the feminine pronouns and his assumed name, not his real one. The New York Times laughably gave major OpEd space to Chad Malloy, a man male who claims to be a woman going by the name “Parker” to claim that Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech.

Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their birth names — and ‘misgendering’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their natural, biological sex — tramples on the speech of normal people, people who do not believe that girls can be boys and boys can be girls. The argument is that, in effect, we can’t hurt their precious little feelings, and so we must concede their major point to engage in debate. Here’s hoping that Elon Musk changes that!

Now comes Jeffrey Barg, also known as the Angry Grammarian, getting upset that Associate Justice Samuel Alito used plain language, did something radical like tell the truth, in his leaked draft majority opinion on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization:

‘Abortionist’ vs. ‘abortion provider’: Why it matters which term the Supreme Court uses

Justice Samuel Alito hates abortions so much, he used a noun to prove it.

by The Grammarian | Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Justice Samuel Alito hates abortions so much, he used a noun to prove it — an explosive one.

At least three times in the draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Alito employs the loaded term abortionist — a word rarely uttered by those who advocate for choice. But by using a word as strong as abortionist, Alito conveys not just his legal objection to the procedure, but his personal disdain for those who perform it.

The -ist suffix explains why his takedown of Roe v. Wade hits so hard.

To be fair, the term is objectively correct. Merriam-Webster defines abortionist simply as “one who induces abortions.” The Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions only begin to get at the judgment that the word carries: “A person who carries out or induces abortions, esp. illegally or in secret.” A second OED definition, “A person who advocates or supports abortion as a woman’s right,” is listed as “chiefly depreciative.”

Of course, the Associated Press Stylebook, as Mr Barg acknowledges further down, discourages the use of “abortionist” or “abortionists,” in favor of “abortion provider.” We have previously noted how even Planned Parenthood referred to abortion appointments being canceled were due to “staffing issues,” and that abortuaries in the South were having trouble securing “providers.”

We were very blunt: “providers” meant abortionists.

Grammatically, it seems that the Angry Grammarian missed an important point: an “abortion provider” does not necessarily refer to the abortionist himself, but could also refer to a clinic or organization, a group of people who are not necessarily the abortionists themselves.

In practice, abortionist is used almost exclusively as a pejorative.

That’s true enough, and it is as it should be.

Abortion providers, abortion doctors, and abortion medical professionals all do the same thing as abortionists, but rarely will one self-identify as an abortionist. (A notable exception: The internet is littered with testimonies of people who call themselves “former abortionists.”) But because abortion in each of those first three examples is an adjective, those terms feel softer than abortionist, more clinical.

Modifiers are lovely, but they weaken writing. “Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs,” opined Strunk and White in their Elements of Style. “It is nouns and verbs, not their assistants, that give good writing its toughness and color.”

That’s exactly why Alito opted for abortionist.

This ought to raise an obvious point: if prenatal infanticide is such a good thing, why is “abortionist” seen as a pejorative? Why are there so few physicians willing to perform abortions in this country, if it’s such a noble cause? Why do they mostly want to keep anonymous?

A person who performs abortions centers the doctor’s humanity. Abortionist defines the totality of a person.

Perhaps Mr Barg also believes that we should refer to someone like Wesley Cook as a person convicted of homicide against a police officer, centering it on his humanity, rather than a cop-killer, defining the totality of him. I’m sure that Mr Cook has shown some decent qualities about himself, as he has rotted away in prison since December 9, 1981, but I don’t care about them; I only care that when he finally leaves prison, it will be as he’s carried to a hearse.

The credentialed media have been doing all that they can to influence debates toward the left through their restrictive use of language, their attempts to soft-pedal words and phrases to steer even their political opponents to concede the terms of the debate. Mr Barg admitted as much, but it’s obvious from his column, that while he recognizes that “abortionist” is the more accurate and concise term, he’s not happy that Justice Alito used it.

I’m happy that the Justice did something radical and told the truth.