‘Abortionist’ is a dehumanizing term. Any judge who uses it has an agenda.

Justice Samuel Alito, probably: “Just to make sure everyone knows how much I hate when women make their own health decisions, I’m gonna use activist antiabortion language in this Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which gets especially violent with its singular use of a certain noun.”

Judge — not doctor — Matthew Kacsmaryk, probably: “Hold my beer.”

And faster than Justice Brett Kavanaugh could say, “You got it, boss,” Kacsmaryk’s anti-scientific ruling against the abortion pill mifepristone ran where Dobbs walked.

Two weeks ago, Kacsmaryk — who is not a doctor — ruled the FDA’s September 2000 approval of the pill was invalid. In doing so, he jeopardized the availability of mifepristone nationwide.

Questionable language abounds in not-doctor Kacsmaryk’s decision, but perhaps none so rankling as his persistent use of the word abortionist — 11 times in the document’s 67 pages.

I read all of them. It’s very Handmaid’s Tale, though at least Margaret Atwood is a better writer.

When Alito’s Dobbs decision leaked almost exactly a year ago, I wrote why the term abortionist (as opposed to abortion doctor or abortion provider) was so explosive: The abortion part of abortion doctor is a modifier, so the term is softer. Any straight, unmodified noun — like abortionist — hits harder than one that’s qualified with a modifier. “Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs,” Strunk and White admonished in their Elements of Style. “It is nouns and verbs, not their assistants, that give good writing its toughness and color.” Antiabortion activists want abortion to sound more vulgar than medical; abortionist helps.

Antiabortion activists want abortion to sound more vulgar than medical; abortionist helps.

Also at play is what’s known as person-first language: a “person who performs abortions” centers the fact that the doctor is first and foremost a person — one who, in addition to performing abortions, might have a family and a dog and favorite Beatles album. The term abortionist decenters that person’s humanity by suggesting their occupation is the sum total of their humanity. That same reasoning explains why it’s better to say “person with a disability” than simply “the disabled.”

Kacsmaryk’s decision uses the term abortionist 11 times, whereas Alito’s much longer Dobbs decision limited it to four. What’s more, Kacsmaryk — who is not a doctor — goes out of his way to employ the loaded buzzwords unborn human and unborn child, something even Alito doesn’t do unless he’s quoting someone else.

While abortionist is decidedly nonperson-first language, unborn human is. Whose humanity is Kacsmaryk — who is still not a doctor — trying to center?

Judges and justices choose their language carefully. They know exactly what they’re doing.

The effect is clear: Readers are meant to infer that while the fetus is a human, the doctor is not. That’s how we end up with more widespread justification for jailing abortion doctors — which is now law in more than a dozen states — or worse.

This persistent judicial activism shows not an evenhanded approach to the law, but rather a coordinated and sustained effort to sway public opinion.

» READ MORE: ‘Abortionist’ vs. ‘abortion provider’: Why it matters which term the Supreme Court uses | The Grammarian

Not-a-doctor Kacsmaryk’s writing does have subtle tells that he knows he’s working against public opinion. In the first page alone, he emphasizes certain points with either italics (“Why did it take two decades for judicial review in federal court?”) or boldface type (“FDA postponed and procrastinated for nearly 6,000 days.”). Rule of thumb: Relying on bold and italics is like writing in ALL CAPS; if you’re not making a sound point to begin with, shouting about it won’t make it make more sense. Even-more-nitpicky rule of thumb: If you’re gonna shout, choose italics or bold — not both.

Which one is better? That’s up to you. I’m a grammarian, not a typographer … and I’m not about to rule on something outside my expertise.

You wouldn’t trust someone who did that, would you?

The Grammarian, otherwise known as Jeffrey Barg, looks at how language, grammar, and punctuation shape our world, and appears biweekly. Send comments, questions, and anacoluthon to jeff@theangrygrammarian.com.