Katha Pollitt takes on “reframing”

Go check out Katha Pollitt’s latest column, If the Frame Fits…
Pollitt takes on the whole “reframing” abortion issue with her usual combination of thoughtfulness and smarts:
In the wake of the 2004 election, Democrats have embarked on an orgy of what the linguist George Lakoff calls “reframing”–repositioning their policies linguistically to give them mass moral appeal. Prime candidate for a values makeover? Abortion, of course.
…Perhaps I’m naïve, but I keep thinking that reframing misses the point, which is to speak clearly from a moral center–precisely not to mince words and change the subject and turn the tables.

Much agreed. I’m especially with Pollitt on the problem of discussing abortion in terms of rape, one of the four ways Lakoff thinks we should be reframing:
…Finally, they should talk about the thousands of women each year who become pregnant from rape: “Should the federal government force a woman to bear the child of her rapist?”

Is it the singling out of rape victims as uniquely deserving, which tacitly accepts the conservative “frame” of abortion as a way for sluts to evade the wages of sin? In fact, most American voters who favor abortion restrictions already make an exception for rape. The ones who don’t–the 11 percent who would ban abortion completely–have already framed it to their satisfaction: Yes, the government should force rape victims to carry to term because the “child” should not be murdered for its father’s crime.
Abortion isn’t wrong. Period. That’s the only frame we should be using.
Any thoughts?