AP Rejects Historical Characterization of Life-Issues Positions

"Anti-Abortion" preferable to "Pro-Life"

By Leon H Wolf Posted in Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[Update by Jeff] I happen to have an AP stylebook right here, and Leon is correct -- that is exactly what it says in the "abortion" entry.

I don't really feel like paying the ten bucks for access to the 2006 AP stylebook, so I can't verify whether this is true, but if it is, I can only say that I'm surprised that it took the media this long to come around to NARAL's point-of-view with respect to "framing":

This clip is from the Associated Press stylebook. It is used by newspapers across the country to provide guidelines in how stories should be written. By and large, many guidelines are neutral and simple are matters of style (i.e. capitalization, punctuation, etc). However, in this one entry, standing unique in comparison to the whole guide, the AP picks sides in the abortion debate and insists that the pro-abortion side be the one supported in news coverage:

Abortion: Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.

More below...

It is important, first of all, to realize that this is a reversal of a decades-old practice. That is not to say that none have ever quibbled with the traditional labels of "pro-life" or "pro-choice"; pro-choice advocates have long accused pro-lifers of inconsistency because they often support the death penalty and/or war, whereas pro-lifers point out that the pro-choicers opposition to legislation mandating ultrasounds, etc. demonstrates that they are really only pro-one-choice. This, however, has always been part of the inevitable partisan and philosophical wrangling that goes with this highly contentious issue; the media has been remarkably restrained and content (with a few exceptions) to refer to the respective sides as "pro-life" and "pro-choice," at least in the context of non-opinion pieces. Despite the fact that the central issue has not changed, apparently now the terminology must.

So what exactly have the folks at Associated Press done? In the first place, they've done a great "framing" favor to the pro-choice side by casting the pro-lifers as the "anti-" side in the debate. As any "framing" person will tell you, labeling any cause as "anti-" anything will make it less appealing than labeling it "pro-" something else, even if they are functionally equivalent (pro-freedom sounds more attractive than anti-slavery; even the Democrats are slowly understanding that just being "anti-Bush" is an electoral loser; almost nobody votes for anyone whose main claim on your vote is being against something.) By contrast, the new AP style manual does the pro-choice side a huge favor; being associated with "rights" is an even greater boon than being the "pro-" side in a debate; the concept of "rights" strikes a powerful chord in the psyche of the average American. The AP could not have created a greater "framing" disparity if they had tried. I sort of gather that that's the point.

Furthermore, if the AP was striving for greater factual accuracy, they failed miserably. In the first place, many people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to the death penalty and almost all wars. That is, as we are constantly reminded, the official position of the Catholic Church, after all, and there are a small handful of Catholics in this country. Furthermore, the "pro-life" label is not intended to merely convey opposition to abortion; it is also frequently used to describe one side (or the other) in the embryo-destruction debate, and the debate over euthanasia. I myself have sometimes used "anti-abortion" when I wish to clearly distinguish that abortion is the only issue under consideration and avoid a bunch of useless carping about the death penalty; however, to adopt this as the only acceptable description of pro-lifers and what they stand for is to miss a significant part of the picture.

The other ridiculous portion of this "guideline" is the treatment of the word "abortionist." Personally, it seems like a handy word to describe someone who performs abortions, but even if I were to grant that the word has pejorative qualities, the AP's explanation of why it should be avoided is laughable: it connotes someone who performs clandestine abortions?? In case the good folks at the Associated Press haven't been paying attention, there is, as far as I know (and I follow this issue pretty closely) no such person who exists in the United States. Given that current Supreme Court precedent mandates the legality of abortion at literally any stage of pregnancy, the AP has apparently concluded that the use of the most common word for someone who performs abortions connotes a person who doesn't exist and for whom there is no demand. Notably, the Associated Press does not offer a substitute word for "person who performs abortions" as there simply isn't one. I guess that we're all just supposed to forget that there are people in this country who perform abortions. There are people out there fighting for "abortion rights" (notice how they still avoid implying that anyone is pro-abortion per se) but no one actually performing them.

And if that doesn't make sense to you, the Ministry of Truth representatives will be at your door shortly to explain it all.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, I'm not exactly surprised at this news. Given the well-documented pro-choice slant in the media, it's actually surprising tha they've exercised such restraint in their use of terminology up until this point; however, it seems clear that for whatever reason, the AP Stylebook authors believe that it's time to implement an aggressive framing protocol. What is unclear is whether they have done this because they believe the fight is truly over, or because they are worried that they are losing this fight, and desire to help tip the scales.

If they have been paying attention, it's the latter.

« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a MeanieComments (14) | Farewell, Steve -- we hardly knew ye.Comments (16) »
AP Rejects Historical Characterization of Life-Issues Positions 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

is that they failed to add that the term "partial birth abortion" should never be used. It's "a late-term procedure that anti-abortion activists call 'partial birth abortion'" or better yet "a certain late-term procedure during pregnancy".

The "abortionist" business is stupid as you noted. What's a non-clandestine abortionist supposed to be called - "an enforcer of women's rights"?

"a certain late-term procedure during pregnancy"

That is much too accurate. Perhaps "Weight loss program for those who are not menstruating".

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

"maternal-responsibility abatement technician"

I think if that they feel that it is necessary to call us anti-abortion they should call themselves pro-abortion and be consistent. Of course they won't because that sounds harsh.... they are for choice. I would be better pleased at them calling us anti-choice at least then their silliness would be more obvious.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

Wow, I should have proof read that better. Apparently Word doesn’t fix stupid. Sorry.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

The economics are simple: anything scarce is expensive, anything with few buyers becomes expensive to produce. For women to have the choice to have abortions, abortions must be common enough to support the abortion clinics in which they are performed.

Abortion clinics provide a low cost service because they deal in high volume. If the volume dropped a great deal, they would have to either charge much more for each abortion performed (moving abortion out of the price range of many women) or go out of business.

Thus, to be pro-choice necessarily means being pro-abortion, to the extent that such people want to see enough abortions performed to make abortion a continuing choice for others.

Dana
Common Sense Political Thought

Ahh... it all makes sense now. If I want people to be able to choose whether or not to smoke I need to encourage people to smoke so it is affordable for everyone. Otherwise I am against freedom. Hear that every one you must smoke so others have the freedom to. Otherwise you are a fascist!

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

cigarette smoking to be safe, legal, and rare.

The AP's bias has been on display for some time. I would bet that you would have to go back a great many years to find the term pro-life in an AP story if it's not in quotation marks. I've been wondering when someone will start a wire service that is interested in balanced reporting, much as Fox News has done for cable news broadcasts. I believe UPI is owned by the Washington Times, but almost never see UPI stories in print.

"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

I think the only thing really new is that they are shifting away from "pro choice" to abortion rights, probably because most people see through the "pro choice" label and see what it really stands for, so they are looking for a new term. I honestly don't think abortion rights sounds any better, after all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know somebody always ends up dead, when there is an abortion.

was done in the late 1980's or early 90's.
The best comment here, and one that might grow enough legs to sway the PC censors, is to make the proper term 'pro-abortion', since they claim the pro-life people are 'anti-abortion'.

It's the murderers who are not pro-life. It's their choice not ours.

If people want to stop the death penalty, then don't murder. End of story. No more death penalty. But people who go ahead and take an innocent life have no one to blame but themselves, if that punishment is laid upon them. Don't kill, and you don't die.

To place the "evil" on the shoulder's of the State is completely backwards, in regards to the death penalty issue.

For some reason I am not authorized to access the page linked to by Leon at the end of the story.

Brent Money

-- Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. But it rocks absolutely, too. --

"Avoid 'abortionist', which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."

So what are we supposed to call someone who performs non-clandestine abortions?

the word meant someone who performs them at all.

I noticed after I posted my last comment that the earlier commenters had covered that ground. Sorry, I'm tired and new to this site.

Hmm by Slade

It just so happens that I have an AP stylebook sitting on my shelf, so I thought I'd take a stab at answering this.

The AP uses anti-abortion instead of pro-life because, as is noted by the linked prolifeblogs.com entry, the term "pro-life" encompasses a wider variety of people than those who are simply against legalized abortion. It would be incorrect, for example, to call those who call for the death penalty for abortion doctors "pro-life." If we understand the term "pro-life" to be a term for a larger philosophy (as prolifeblogs.com implies), then it is not the correct term to use to describe those are are simply against legalized abortion.

The style guide does not say "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life" because it believes to two words to be interchangeable; it says that because the AP knows that "pro-life" is often used to describe those opposed to abortion, when this is not necessarily accurate. The AP says to use "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life" when specifically discussing abortions, not to never use the term "pro-life."

The AP uses "abortion rights" because, frankly, "pro-abortion" is not accurate. There are numerous politicians who would like to see abortions reduced as much as possible view social policy, and view an abortion as the worst of many alternatives available to pregnant women, who nonetheless are in favor of abortion being legal. It is not accurate to call these politicians "pro-abortion." For the most part, these politicians claim that they believe it is a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses. "Abortion rights" is a more accurate phrasing than either "pro-abortion" or the sloganized and basically meaningless "pro-choice."

In short, the AP is concerned with accuracy, not taking a side.

You could make the argument, I suppose, that the AP should refer only to those who "oppose legalized abortion" and those who "favor legalized abortion." That is as neutral a phrasing as I can come up with. But it would lead to some awfully awkward writing.

The reality is that in the abortion debate, any shorthand term for a position will quickly become so charged with connotations that it is impossible to avoid insinutations of bias.

I'm not familiar with how the term 'abortionist' has been used in the past; it's possible that the AP is right. In any case, the terms "abortion provider" and "abortion doctor," both of which I've seen in the news, are certainly neutral enough.

Tell you what: If you want to call their side abortion rights, then you need to call the anti-abortion, anti-embryonic stem-cell research side the "human rights" side, since they favor the right for all human life not to be murdered or brought into involuntary medical experimentation.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I'm not particularly interested in getting into an argument over when life begins, so I won't.

The term 'human rights' is a very general term already applied to a wide variety of causes; using it as a term for those who oppose abortion on the grounds that a human embryo/fetus has a right not to be destroyed is lazy, or misleading or worse, in a profession that values specifity.

"Unborn rights" might be a good term, which I believe is already seeing some scattered use by the anti-abortion side.

The term 'human rights' is a very general term already applied to a wide variety of causes; using it as a term for those who oppose abortion on the grounds that a human embryo/fetus has a right not to be destroyed is lazy, or misleading or worse, in a profession that values specifity.

I suppose it is lazy because a fetus is not human? no no that doesn't make sense... oh I get it. It must be because they have no rights.
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. -John Adams

The AP uses "abortion rights" because, frankly, "pro-abortion" is not accurate. There are numerous politicians who would like to see abortions reduced as much as possible view social policy, and view an abortion as the worst of many alternatives available to pregnant women, who nonetheless are in favor of abortion being legal. It is not accurate to call these politicians "pro-abortion."

This is just hooey.

There is active and passive support for all activities. What would AP call those who personally don't discriminate but believe that segregated lunch counters and schools are perfectly alright? "Pro-association rights"?

What would it call the Germans who were personally opposed to concentration camps and believed they should be limited but, on the other hand, really understood how getting rid of those folks was just the worst of many alternatives? "Pro-ethnic purity"?

I think we know what the AP would call them and rightfully so.

No. You support abortion, for whatever reason, you are pro-abortion.

Us Okies call that type of reasoning Bull Sh**. It's in our Style Book. Honest.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I'm glad we can still trot out the Nazi and slavery analogies.

There are any number of reasons that people could believe that the "safe, legal and rare" position is the correct position on abortion.

Regardless of how incorrect you personally think the position is, or how craven you think the politicians that adopt is are, it's a real position that plenty of people subscribe to. Describing it as "pro-abortion" is flatly misleading.

There are plenty of people who don't like pornography, but think it should be legal. There are plenty of people who quote Voltaire ("defend to the death your right to speak," etc.) There are plenty of people who advocate for 'state's rights' on any number of issues. Saying that something ought to be legal (or that we might not be the best people to be making policy decisions about it) doesn't always mean you support it.

This argument is nonsense 99% of the time. It typically comes from a liberal who believes there should be unlimited access to abortion for any reason at any time. I haven't figured out where the "rare" part comes in, as these people won't even grant that PBA should be banned. A better way to put it would be "safe legal and as frequent as anyone desires".

that most so called journalists are so far left they can't see how far left they've gone. It isn't more factual, it just fits your personal (I would say skewed, but that does reflect my bias) worldview better. Admitting that the term pro-life has any truth whatsoever undermines the counter position, perhaps slowly, but steadily until the "argument" in favor of abortion rights collapses. In order to preserve the possibility that the pro-abortion choice worldview is correct, it is necessary not to admit that possibility into the debate.

Now, I will grant you the topic on which I had this debate was slightly different, but the specifics make the bias that much easier to see. I think it has been more than twenty years, so the quotes might not be exact, but the thrust is. Topic was Graham-Rudman-Hollings (and yes, on the day in question, it was Graham-Rudman-Hollings, not simply Graham-Rudman).

Me: How can you call them "across the board budget cuts, when they specificly exclude 2/3 of the budget, including defense and welfare?"

At this point several people jumped all over the welfare remark pointing out that the military budget was excluded as well.

Me: "I included the defense budget in what I said was excluded. You can't call the across the board budget cuts because that isn't true."

Professor: "Mr. [Gadfly], you should be in philosophy, not journalism. Your problem is that you are too interested in the truth, and not in what was said."

The quote from the Prof is the one part I am sure is an exact quote, because it still rings in my ears all these years later. I was flabbergasted that ANYONE in the media would make such a statement, and at an atypical loss for words. It was my one and only semester in a journalism class, as I decided I had learned enough journalism truth in that statement to last a lifetime.

That this was meant as a reply to me.

As I tried to explain above, the AP hasn't rejected the term "pro-life" in any way. I'm sure you'll still find it all over the place if you read their stories dealing with pro-life issues. All the stylebook says here is that pro-life shouldn't be used as a catch-all for those who oppose abortion, because that's not a necessarily accurate phrasing.

It seems that this is accepted practice among the Washington Post staff writers, also:

Democrats here typically do not stress liberalism. Lucas, for instance, opposes abortion rights and gun-control measures. But in Kentucky and elsewhere, Democrats have some reason for optimism about the traction they might gain from the economy.

Note the almost universal use of the phrase: "gun-control measures." Any politician who opposes those would logically be comfortable with guns being out of control. That phrase is a catch-all for more specific terms describing what those measures actually mean, such as:

LCAV's new state and local agenda includes bans on "assault weapons," "large capacity ammunition magazines," handguns, and .50 caliber rifles; increased restrictions on "non-powder guns," such as BB and pellet guns; new and more restrictive minimum age requirements for purchasing and possessing guns and ammunition; strict requirements for gun dealer licensing and operation; background checks on private gun sales; gun owner licensing; gun registration; requiring "personalized" or so-called "smart" features on guns; imposing (presumably unachievable) gun manufacturing standards; requiring ballistic imaging of ammunition shot through privately purchased guns; waiting periods; restrictions on "multiple" gun purchases; and restricting the carrying of guns.

The principle difference, aside from the loss of specificity and the grouping together of all these legislative efforts under a single, positive, reasonable-sounding, focus-grouped term like "gun control" is that when the NRA calls it an "anti-gun" agenda, they sound to the uninitiated and uninformed like, to put it bluntly, a group of wackos who want guns to be "out of control."

This was a fantastic article, Leon. Well-written, well-reasoned, and absolutely on the mark. We need more of these articles dedicated to exposing the use of language to "frame" the argument by the Left. One of the reasons so many people find it difficult to "come to terms" with Republicans is simply that -- the terms they have been taught, and the ones that are in widespread use, promulgated by the national media, are impossible to avoid. It's a form of subtle thought control: it has long been known at least since Orwell (and actually well before him) that controlling the language people speak has a powerful effect on their thoughts, and especially their "values." If you control the language, you have half the battle of controlling the culture won.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

That they don't say he supports "the right to bear arms" which is a right that is verbatim in the Constitution. Or even "gun rights" or "gun owner rights." I have enjoyed the fact that instapundit always refers to victories of the pro-2nd amendment crowd as "human rights victories."

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

how about calling the doctors 'abortors'; and those dying, 'the aborted', or 'the abortee'.

and the wordsmithing above by slade is nice. yet, to the extent that 'pro-' means 'in favor of' (the first definition of pro on dictionary.com), then 'those that favor legalized abortion' are indeed pro-legalized-abortion.

yet, that is probably not totally accurate, because it insinuates that a pro legal abortion advocate could be anti-illegal abortions....and i'm not sure that would be the case.

it sounds like slade is really 'pro-keeping-abortions-a-legal-option', but truly only 'pro-abortion' in cases where where the kid isn't wanted by the mom.

Well by Slade

I tried to avoid discussing my own policy preferences, because that isn't really the point of the discussion.

Even the terms "pro" and "in favor of" obviously have some exclusive connotations associated with them, which tells you how hard finding terminology that everyone can accept will be.

The term for the aborted fetus is probably unnecessary; besides the fact that "aborted fetus/embryo" gets the job done just fine, the term is rarely used because the fetus isn't the subject or object of a sentence. It's not doing anything, and people don't usually need the process of abortion explained to them, so in practical terms a news article never talks about the fetus.

...they would spend more time trying to advance adoption as the more common "choice".

The only folks I see actively promoting adoption are Christian fundamentalists and the Mormons. "Pro-adoption" would seem to fit the rhetoric of both sides.

Would you want to go through life knowing that somewhere out there is a kid born by you who you could run into any day? Yeah...I thought not.

On the other hand, liberals support people practing responsible behavior if they want to have sex such as use of contraceptives which would prevent the entire problems in the first place. That would reduce the abortion rate. But that first requires that people are educated about them, and that they are available, which conservative oppose.

Liberals also support offering financial incentives to make having children more feasible, which would also reduce the abortion rate. Conservatives oppose.

Considering conservatives are the ones who claim to think abortion is so bad, their inactions speak a lot louder than ours.

The abortion rate has fallen a lot since the 1980's, liberals do not care. What we do care about is the availability of choice, that is, property over one's own body. Actually, that is supposed to be a highly conservative position.

-- Nothing good has ever come from politics --

I'm reminded of when Sen. McCain asked if he could find lettuce pickers.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

That has to be the most selfish, self-centered post I have read in a looooonng time.

Would you rather have a child out there that you may run into someday in the future, or live with the knowledge that you were responsible for killing your own child.

Gee. That's a hard one. At least it is for a person with no conscience.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Its not selfish. If I had a child I would want to take care of him or her myself, because then it's my son or daughter. Otherwise I'd feel there is my child out there somewhere and I failed them, and I could run into them. I'm not saying it's the worst thing in the world but it is disturbing.

An abortion is not the same because I believe in the first trimester it is not yet a full person, so it is not killing a person. Its much easier than going through the whole pregnancy then adoption. That's just how I feel. Not to get into a long debate.

-- Nothing good has ever come from politics --

Would you want to go through life knowing that somewhere out there is a kid born by you who you could run into any day?

That would drive a person to suicide, wouldn't it?

"Would you want to go through life knowing that somewhere out there is a kid born by you who you could run into any day?"

See if Beet's question makes any sense if the subject were capital punishment: "Beet, would like to go through life knowing that somewhere out there is a Richard Allen Davis (Polly Klaas' killer) you could run into any day?"

http://www.studentmedia.appstate.edu/Stylebook2000.pdf#search=%22AP%20st...

(This is a copy of the 2000 AP stylebook)

Here are two universities that base their stylebooks on the AP:

http://www.uclaphoto.ucla.edu/Resources/UCLAStyleGuide.pdf#search=%22AP%...

http://www.english.udel.edu/Journlsm/J_StyleGuide.htm

"Everybody needs money! That's why they call it money!"

I used to think that it was a reasonably reliable source.

Now, I see it has become a reflection of the views of the AP's newsroom.

They can use it to refer to people opposed to the death penalty.

That would be "anti-death penalty"

-- Nothing good has ever come from politics --

Can someone please explain this to me:

That is not to say that none have ever quibbled with the traditional labels of "pro-life" or "pro-choice"; pro-choice advocates have long accused pro-lifers of inconsistency because they often support the death penalty and/or war, whereas pro-lifers point out that the pro-choicers opposition to legislation mandating ultrasounds, etc. demonstrates that they are really only pro-one-choice. [emphasis added]

If someone opposes a law mandating that pregnant women have ultrasounds, how is that inconsistent with the idea of "choice?" Like any medical procedure, however simple, shouldn't women be able to choose whether to get an ultrasound rather than having one forced on her by the so-called nanny-state? Or am I missing something here?

Personally, I like being described as anti-abortion. It is direct and uncompromising. Why should we even want a fuzzy term like "pro-life" applied to us? If a term like "pro-life" didn't exist, and someone made it up, we would all assume it was some Kafkaesque liberal buzzword for, say, radical animal rights or something, much like "tolerance" stands in for "thought control." Any soft-headed moderates who are willing to say they are pro-life and yet are not genuinely against abortion can stuff it. I'm not pro-life. I'm anti-abortion. I'm even anti-choice; murder is a choice that should not be permitted, or even contemplated. Worrying about "framing" is what liberals do because their ideas suck. Our side relishes frankness.

Wake me up when the AP gets around to using a term like "anti-woman" (it's probably only a matter of time), and then we can rumble, because it will be one of those classical left-wing overreach-backfire moments. The anti-abortion movement could make hay off it, if we dropped this present spin-addled semantic quibbling over the AP style guide.

Onesimus

because words have meanings that are understood by people. When, for political reasons, journalists decide to change them, people have a right to complain.

In the US, "pro-choice" is generally understood to refer to abortion and not school vouchers, abandoning the drugs war, repealing the minimum wage or legalising prostitution.

"Pro-life" is understood to refer to abortion and not opposition to capital punishment or support for federally mandated vegetarianism.

When a "news" organisation decides that these phrases are not good enough - that they do not put favoured groups in a sufficiently positive or disfavoured groups in a sufficiently negative light - then people have a right to ask why a 'news' organisation chooses to have favoured and disfavoured groups in the first place.

You may, of course, characterise your own views in any way you like. But when AP decides to let its liberal ideology dictate the way it reports news, you must expect conservatives to complain.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Just because, due to historical contingency, "pro-life" has come to mean anti-abortion doesn't mean it's a good term for what it is supposed to mean. I have actually been at meetings that attempted to bring together anti-abortion, anti-death penalty and anti-war folks under a "pro-life" rubric. It's a fiasco... most anti-abortion people don't want to be in that big tent, including myself. There are lives against which I am very much anti, such as bin Laden.

And the idea that "pro-choice" somehow is more intrinsically positive-sounding is actually a cop-out... it gives away the whole store semantically on the idea that "choice" is invariably an unabashed positive, and that is is better to be "pro-something" than "anti-opposite-of-something". That is, to treat "pro-choice" as a "better" label that the media are handing out to our opponents tacitly accedes to novelty in values over conservation of values, and license rather than liberty... playing into the hands of the ideology conservatives are trying to combat.

Would we object if the media characterized conservatives as "anti-jihad"? "Anti-pork"? I sure wouldn't. Like most liberal ideologies, the language games of the MSM bear the seeds of their own destruction, because clarity about what conservatives are for and against plays to our strengths.

Onesimus

The complaint is not that 'pro-choice' is a better label than 'pro-life' it is that AP has decided to change 'pro-choice' to 'pro-abortion rights'. The use of the word 'rights' is clearly an editorial decision to take sides in an active political debate.

This being so, it is hard not to see the change from 'pro-life' to 'anti-abortion' in the same context. You may like that change, but I think you are in the minority, and I am sure it was done for the purpose of weakening the pro-life cause.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service