From all the data we collected we have seen the impacts of persuasive language on the abortion debate. Public figures and political leanings of a state impact the way the public views the topic and how it is handled in the courts. Public figures such as presidents have had the most sway on both public opinion and legislation. For example, President Ford took a middle ground on the abortion debate, personally he was against abortion but knew he didn’t want to ban it. Due to this stance the decision on abortion went to states, where the political leanings of government officials decided the fate of abortion for that state, conservative states choosing stricter abortion bans and more liberal states having more open abortion laws. The influence that high standing public figures have strongly impact communities’ stances on an issue.  

Our survey is a great example of the way a state’s political leanings can affect the way individuals think. We surveyed around 95 people, all anonymous, about their opinions on pro-life and pro-choice groups. These people ranged from 18 to mid 20’s and were mainly from the west coast area of Washington State. We know that Washington is a blue state, and has been for the majority of its history, save when it turned red to vote for Ronald Reagan in the Presidential election. From those surveyed 58.5% were Democrats, and 85.1% were pro-choice advocates. To put this in perspective with more conservative thought, only 7.4% were Republican and 4.3% were on the pro-life side. Even though our survey data is the most biased piece of evidence we have, it does show that while leaving in a blue state, especially in a county that is left leaning, the individuals will think more liberally.  

 Political leanings and stance on abortion also affect what language you are using when referring to abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life are the desired names of both sides, however pro-life calls pro-choice groups “pro-abortion” to give them a negative connotation. Pro-choice call pro-life groups “anti-choice” to give the same negative effect. Each group fights for vocabulary rights in this debate in hopes to gain further power on the topic. For example, pro-life has had a better grasp on vocabulary used in the abortion debate, using words like “late-term abortion”, “partial-birth”, “abortion-clinic” and “unborn”. These are not medical terms used by professionals but have crept their way into the words used by everyday individuals and politicians when they talk about abortion. While these words are primarily used by pro-life groups to get an emotional reaction out of the public, pro-choice prefers to use medical terminology to seem more logical. They use words like “intact dilation and extraction”, “medical and health clinic” and “fetus”. Even though “fetus” is used by everyday individuals, it is harder to find people using the term “intact dilation and extraction.” 

The primary bulk of our research has been towards the way public figures affect public opinion, and how state political leanings affect how that state will treat abortion. Our next step in our research would be focusing on individual court cases and finding out which states brought them up, and how the case ended in terms of helping pro-life or pro-choice groups. Our conclusion is that pro-life has shown their influence on the abortion topic, and even though pro-choice is dominate in its own way, pro-life has been able to get a good grasp on vocabulary used in the abortion debate due to their more emotional reaction.