Words Counts: Family Planning Advocacy in a US Context

Abstract

Words, and the emotions they elicit, matter. This is especially true when dealing with a subject that inflames passionate emotions like family planning (FP). Despite the benefits gained from FP, such as improved maternal and child health, many remain skeptical, especially with questions of abortion's place in discussing women's sexual and reproductive health. Language to talk about FP with US government (USG) policymakers and faith-based organizations (FBOs), especially from a conservative perspective, was tested through focus groups, one-on-one interviews with FBOs and 18 Congressional offices. Overall results were clear that defining what terms mean is crucial to buy-in, helped identify which terms are most palatable to faith audiences in the US and understanding the context of when and how to use terms and definitions is essential when advocating to USG audiences on such a sensitive topic. Despite the benefits gained from family planning (reduce poverty, reduce risk of HIV/AIDS, improve maternal and child health) some policy makers remain skeptical. Many of these reservations come from questions of abortion's place in discussing women's sexual and reproductive health. However, FP services reduce abortions, by preventing unplanned pregnancies and empower families to grow in safe and healthy ways. Highlighting initiatives supported by local faith leaders, reinforcing messages from health care professionals, can reduce the skepticism of FP services. This allows policy makers to make decisions impacting family planning based on facts and data, not conjecture. Key messages Explain what language is most palatable and culturally appropriate to use and be understood by faith-based organizations and conservative policy makers in the United States on family planning. Discuss others experiences in speaking with conservative policy makers in the United States regarding family planning.