Yesterday, Kansas became the first state to ban the most common procedure for a second-trimester abortion.

A bill signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican and longtime abortion opponent, outlaws what it calls “dismemberment abortion,” defined in part as “knowingly dismembering a living unborn child and extracting such unborn child one piece at a time from the uterus.” The law does not use medical terminology, and its practical impact is uncertain, some experts said. But it appears to ban or require alteration of the method known as dilation and evacuation, which is used in nearly all abortions after the 12th to 14th week of pregnancy and is seen by many doctors as the safest and most convenient technique for most women.

Huh, how very curious that the law doesn’t use medical terminology to describe what, exactly, it’s banning, instead opting to make up a term called “dismemberment abortion.” We’ve seen this exact strategy before the last time the anti-choice movement successfully got an abortion technique outlawed: so-called “partial-birth abortion.” Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, claims, “This law has the power to transform the landscape of abortion policy in the United States.” But it’s pretty clear that one of the main goals is to transform the language — by using the most gruesome, emotionally charged terminology possible.

Not that the law doesn’t have real policy implications. While the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, the vast majority of those who get a second-trimester abortion choose a D&E. By some estimates, the law could affect 8 percent of abortions performed in the state, forcing doctors to use an alternative — most likely a medication abortion — which is riskier for some patients and can involve days of stressful waiting. (Again, giving a lie to the idea that anti-choice regulations have anything to do with ensuring patient safety.) Note too that D&Es are commonly used after an incomplete miscarriage.

Pro-choice groups plan to file a lawsuit challenging the law. “In this case,” the New York Times notes, “the courts would need to determine whether the Kansas law, by shrinking access to abortions or requiring doctors to use methods they feel are less safe and effective, posed an ‘undue burden’ on abortion rights.”

Header image credit: AP/John Hanna