Dear Learned Colleague,

Violence against women and girls is a universal scourge, and there is widespread agreement that it must be prevented, its effects addressed, and its perpetrators held to account.

But not all responses to such violence are created equal. From the term used to define it (violence against women and girls vs. gender-based violence) to the specific elements of a response, to the organizations tasked with carrying it out, the abortion lobby is working hard to add its controversial agenda to this important work.  In this month's Definitions, I explore how this is being accomplished, and offer some suggestions for keeping the agenda abortion-free.

All the very best,

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
Managing Editor

Violence against women and girls, whether perpetrated in the home, the workplace, at school, in public spaces, or during times of war or crisis, leaves devastating effects on survivors and their families. At the national and international level, there is widespread consensus across political lines that such violence should be prevented, that those who have suffered from it should receive help, and that perpetrators should be held accountable for their crimes. Yet despite near-universal agreement that violence against women and girls should be eliminated, the inclusion of language on “response to gender-based violence” in laws and policies is far from innocuous, when the practical implications of that terminology are taken into consideration. From the definitions of what such a response should entail, to the organizations most likely to carry out the policy, there is inherent potential that responding to violence against women and girls, a seemingly uncontroversial goal, involves one of the most controversial issues of the day: abortion. Read More >>>