I feel that she makes an error in her assessment that "...People may be more willing to support a woman's right to do it, or even to have an abortion themselves, based on the language we use. But it doesn't change the facts of what occurs..."

Let me see if I can effectively address the underlying issue.

Language does indeed change the "facts" of what occurs. Attend to the following syllogism:

If reality is even partially determined or defined subjectively, and if language even partially influences how we think and feel about abstract concepts, then language impacts reality.

Premise: Reality is, at least partially, a subjective experience. That is to say that how we feel or think about certain things helps to define the existence of those things (I will be happy to argue this point later if the need arises.)

Premise: Language influences our thoughts and emotions (I don't really think this is an especially debatable point... but I will eagerly defend it if the need arises).

Ergo... Language impacts reality.

This argument is especially pertinent if we are willing to acknowledge the validity of essentialism as a way of viewing the world... and, as much as I like to debate it in the abstract, we do view the world through an essentialist lens. When we say "that is a chair", we impose the abstract, metaphysical qualities of "chairness" on a given object... right or wrong, it's how we live our life.

With that in mind, language actually becomes the defining characteristic of reality. We impose meaning on the void through our thoughts and beliefs, with words as the medium -- the bridge connecting thought and reality.

To summarize in a way that might make more sense... The words you use to frame an experience define the experience. By changing the words (and/or the emotions and beliefs behind them), you change the actuality of the experience.