Abortion and the Rhetoric of Images
A reflection on the image-based rhetorical strategies at play in Florida's Issue 4 abortion amendment
Several weeks ago, I was standing in an auto body repair shop when a pro-abortion advertisement appeared on the television hanging on the wall. Here it is (I encourage you to watch it before reading on):
In it, a somber-looking doctor explains why the right to abortion needs to be enshrined in the Florida state constitution.
“It’s the hardest conversation I have with patients,” he says, “telling them that the baby won’t make it.” He continues, “And now because of Florida’s extreme abortion ban I also have to tell them I can’t help.”
Presumably, what Dr. Goodman (his real name, if you can believe it) means by “help” is that he could kill his patients’ babies before they would die a natural death.
If that is not what Dr. Goodman means, I’d want to know precisely what he means by “help.”
Since first encountering this ad in public, I’ve seen it at least three or four more times on YouTube. The video has over one million views, and yet it only has 32 “likes.” The ratio between views and likes makes it clear that this video is being aggressively promoted through paid YouTube advertisements.
I have no idea how much this particular ad has been run on local television, but if I had to guess, it has been aired (and will continue to air) many, many times.
The Aim of Today’s Post
In this post, I want to consider some of the rhetoric at play in this ad (and others) put out by the pro-abortion group Yes on 4 Florida.
As you may know, I don’t agree with the pro-abortion activists trying to push this amendment through. It is all the more imperative, then, to understand how these images work to persuade people to vote in favor of the amendment.
In this particular rhetorical situation, if you try to respond to the images with words and discursive reasoning (i.e., “logic”), you will fail. The image has an immediacy of effect and correlative emotional dimension that discursive reasoning does not.
The Historical Context and “Health”
On November 5, Florida voters will decide whether they want to have the following added to the state’s constitution:
“… no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
Essentially, the amendment’s language leaves it up to the “healthcare provider’s” discretion to decide what constitutes a threat to a patient’s health. As with the god term “security,” anything can be justified in the name of “health.”
If you want to extend the reach of access to abortion, all you need to invoke is “health,” whether physical or mental.
The Enthymeme and the Image
An enthymeme is a particular argumentative tactic that relies upon the audience assumptions to advance a claim. For example, if it is good (collectively speaking) to be environmentally conscious, then I can advance my claim by suggesting how good it is for the environment.
Images themselves have an enthymematic function. Such is the function of a brand, in general. At its most ideal, a brand logo is an image of trust.
In this Dr. Goodman ad, the enthymeme at play is that doctors are trustworthy.
The image of a doctor “says” something: I’m compassionate; I’m someone you can trust; I know what I’m doing; I’ve been doing this a long time; etc. Rhetorically and strategically speaking, the image is aimed to draw upon the ethos (credibility) of the doctor.
He wears a gold chain and a gold bracelet. He speaks directly into the camera in a casual but serious manner. Who is under attack, according to this doctor? Not only women but doctors themselves! As he says, the ban “could send doctors like me to prison just for treating my patients.”
Opposing the abortion amendment means attacking doctors, even if the abortion amendment doesn’t even mention doctors (it references “healthcare providers,” who may or may not be abortion clinic workers).
That’s how images work: one thing equals another; both resonate on the same frequency.
Yes on 4 Florida
Yes on 4 Florida—the pro-abortion coalition consisting of the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other groups—distributed the video on their YouTube channel. A brief look at their other videos confirms their rhetorical strategy:
“60% :30” – In this video, around 24 seconds in you actually hear reference to the doctors are trustworthy enthymeme. It also relies upon the presupposition that politicians are untrustworthy. Note the View to Like ratio in this video, too (175K Views to 4 Likes). This video is part of their larger YouTube ad strategy.
“Before” – The closing remark of this 30 second video is: “Government will never know better than a woman and her doctor.”
“Dra. Grande - :30” – This video is all in Spanish, and it features a female doctor supporting the abortion amendment. The appeal here is to the Spanish Catholic population of Florida. Near the beginning, she states, “Como médico y como Católica ….,” which translates roughly to “as a doctor and as a Catholic.”
“Unequal :30” – This video likewise contrasts the doctor with the politician.
Those in favor of Issue 4 have spent $50 million compared to the $5 million of those who oppose it. For every $10 spent by the pro-abortion lobby, the pro-life lobby spends $1.
Who gives money in support of Issue 4? As per Ballotpedia, Marsha Laufer (presumably the wife of billionaire Henry Laufer) gave $9.6 million, the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation gave $5.4 million, and the Tides Foundation gave $3.2 million, just to name a few.
So far as I can tell, those against abortion in the state of Florida are simply being outspent.
Yes on 4 Florida clearly has other videos planned, as their YouTube channel makes clear. More videos are sitting in queue, waiting to be slowly distributed via paid YouTube advertisements that add “variety” to their existing rhetorical strategy.
Contending Images
What is the opposing side doing to combat these images? So far, I’ve found a few examples from Floridians for Truth, the Archdiocese of Miami, and Vote No on 4 Florida.
Floridians for Truth
This group put together this video entitled “Amendment 4’s Dark Secret,” which has ~200 views (at the time of viewing). The view count demonstrates the video is not running as a YouTube ad. Nobody is watching this ad on YouTube, even if they are watching it elsewhere.
The appeal in this video, which came out roughly two months ago, is that the 84 thousand babies aborted in Florida last year generated $62 million for the “big abortion industry.” Yet, we don’t learn much about the big abortion industry.
The mythic appeal is against the “dark evil agenda” (to use the phrase from the video itself) profiting from aborted babies.
We are treated to a number of stock images—the polar opposite of the particular images of real doctors and patients in the Yes on 4 Florida videos.
Altogether, this video would have benefited from more concrete examples and images. While it is well timed (1 minute and 6 seconds), it moves on too rational of a level; it does not do enough to benefit from the real strength of images: to convey emotional depth with immediacy.
The Archdiocese of Miami
“What you need to know about Florida's Amendment 4”
This video also draws upon the enthymeme of the trusted doctor around 39 seconds in.
The doctor gives far more logical evidence of the issues with amendment 4 such as: this amendment would allow minors the ability to have an abortion without the consent of their parents and viability is undefined in the amendment as proposed.
The close of the video “No Parental Consent? No Doctors? No Way! Vote NO on 4” is somewhat ambiguous, as I’m not entirely sure what “No Doctors?” means.
“Lo que debe saber sobre la enmienda 4”
The same clip of the doctor in the video immediately above also appears in this video meant for Spanish-speaking audiences.
This video is also intercut between the doctor and women speaking about abortion.
These videos are good but too long (~7.5 minutes long). From the looks of it, they are not being distributed through YouTube paid ads. Essentially, the videos have been made but not promoted. The strongest aspects of these videos come from the testimony of the women in them.
Vote No on 4 Florida
“Not What it Seems” (ENG) – Amendment 4
This video nicely demonstrates the rhetorical tactic of definition at work. One major issue with the proposed amendment is that it does not offer sufficient definitions for its terms (“healthcare provider,” “viability,” “health”). The amendment also eliminates the need for parental consent for abortions.
Oddly enough, most of the images/animations are of the written word (as opposed to images of human beings).
Dr. Grazie Christie (who appears in The Archdiocese of Miami videos) also appears in several videos on Vote No on 4’s YouTube channel.
If I had to guess, Vote No on 4 is running these videos on local television. The view count on their YouTube channels, however, leads me to believe that they aren’t running any paid YouTube ads.
Images: Future Possibilities
An image is a type of rhetorical proof strong enough to flip the gestalt from non-believer to believer, from pro-choice to pro-life.
Presuppose there were people living in America who would deny the German Holocaust. What would you do to convince them? You could hand them a book filled with arguments. You could try to talk to them about the situation (X number of people imprisoned, so-and-so authority says that there really are concentration camps, etc.).
Or you could simply hand them a pile of photographs: of bodies, shoes, and shorn hair.
One of the key lessons of media ecology is that you do not (and cannot) argue with an image. You can contextualize an image. You can provide a counter-image. But you don’t argue with an image. The pro-life movement needs to understand this basic fact of contemporary image-based argumentation.
In 2018, a UK anti-abortion group (Abort67) used graphic imagery of abortions as part of their rhetorical strategy. They received a complaint from a local mother: "What about my child's human right to walk down the street without being upset by these horrific images?" How did they reply? Fittingly: The images are disturbing because “abortion is highly disturbing.”
In the least, those against Issue 4 should take a lesson from perhaps one of the finest anti-abortion advertisements of all time: “Dear Future Mom.” France banned the advertisement since it might upset women who previously aborted a baby with Down Syndrome.
What do we get to see and hear from in this advertisement? All the human beings who would’ve otherwise been terminated. In this ad, we see the face that has hitherto remained silent, the face that has hitherto suffered violence. We finally see the image that speaks.
Thank you for reading. Please consider liking, commenting, or subscribing. Kudos to the Floridians for Truth, the Archdiocese of Miami, and Vote No on 4 Florida for their work; seriously consider donating to any of these organizations.
If you’re a Catholic Floridian, you have a grave moral obligation to vote no on Issue 4.
Giving Credit where Credit is Due: Richard Weaver and Kenneth Burke talk about god/ultimate terms. The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas would likely resonate with the last few lines above on the central importance of the face of the other when it comes to ethics.
Correction: The Floridians for Truth ad mentioned above mentions 84 thousand babies—not 84 million babies, as I had originally written.
Excellent! Thanks for writing this important piece. Love the Dear Future Mom video. Very powerful! 👏