{"id":253823,"date":"2021-10-01T18:34:58","date_gmt":"2021-10-01T23:34:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=253823"},"modified":"2021-09-30T01:32:21","modified_gmt":"2021-09-30T06:32:21","slug":"pro-abortion-group-feeds-biased-language-journalists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-group-feeds-biased-language-journalists\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion group spoon feeds biased abortion language to journalists"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

In a tweet<\/a>\u00a0to journalists, Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH) announced its updated “Resource for Journalists Reporting on Abortion<\/a>,”\u00a0which includes biased abortion language to “ensure accurate and compassionate reporting.”<\/p>\n

But the suggestions they proposed are anything but accurate, and even refer to the deliberate killing of a preborn child in the womb by abortion as “normal.” The suggestions also eliminate the long used term “abortionist,” eliminate the term “born-alive,” and refer to pro-life legislation as “extreme.” In addition, PRH (formerly called Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health PRCH) is prodding journalists to stop using terms like pregnant “woman.”<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Physicians for Reproductive Health PRH tweets updated abortion language (Image: Twitter)<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

PRH’s suggestions are below:<\/p>\n

1) Refer to abortion as “normal,” “healthcare,” and “reproductive justice”<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a woman’s own preborn child, which is the antithesis of normal, and we know this instinctively. However,\u00a0PRH’s website tells journalists,\u00a0“Abortion is a part of the full spectrum of reproductive health care… That\u2019s right, it\u2019s normal. And should be talked about and treated as such.”<\/p>\n

Citing a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine<\/a>\u00a0(NASEM) study, which Live Action News previously<\/a>\u00a0noted was heavily written by and funded by abortion insiders, PRH also claimed, “All forms of abortion care are safe and effective.”<\/p>\n

The group also cited the heavily debunked<\/a> and regurgitated Turnaway Study, claiming, “People have many different reasons for seeking an abortion, all of them valid,” adding,\u00a0“Research has also found that the\u00a0overwhelming majority of people<\/a>\u00a0who seek abortions are confident about their decision, meaning that abortion should not be portrayed as an inherently difficult, complicated or tragic choice. All abortion stories should be presented as equally valid and treated with compassion.”<\/p>\n

Except, the abortion industry dismisses all<\/em>\u00a0abortion stories which deal with regret, trauma, or abuse because those stories don’t match their narrative.<\/p>\n

2) Refer to abortion bans as “extreme”<\/strong><\/p>\n

This kind of manipulation only benefits the abortion industry, which PRH represents.<\/p>\n

“All abortion bans are extreme and dangerous,” the organization wrote.\u00a0Unsurprisingly, PRH pushed for taxpayer-funded abortion and was critical of the Hyde Amendment<\/a>, which protects federal dollars from paying for most abortions.<\/p>\n

“Abortion care is health care. It should be covered no matter your source of insurance,” they wrote.<\/p>\n

PRH failed to tell journalists a well-known industry secret: when abortion is\u00a0subsidized<\/a>\u00a0by taxpayers,\u00a0abortions increase<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

3) \u201cAbortion doctor\u201d or \u201cabortionist\u201d should\u00a0never<\/b>\u00a0be used<\/strong><\/p>\n

PRH wants those they represent to be called\u00a0\u201cabortion provider\u201d or \u201cprovider of abortion care\u201d \u2014 not<\/em>\u00a0\u201cabortionist.\u201d<\/p>\n

“The terms ‘abortion doctor’ or ‘abortionist’ should\u00a0never<\/b>\u00a0be used; they are medically inaccurate and often used to stigmatize abortion providers and mislead people about their work,” PRH writes. “Physicians should always have their professional title ‘Dr.’ used.”<\/p>\n

4) Only use the term “pregnant person”<\/strong><\/p>\n

When it comes to abortion clients, journalists should refrain from using the female gender.<\/p>\n

According to PRH, journalists must now use terms like\u00a0\u201cpregnant person\u201d or \u201cpeople who have abortions\u201d instead of \u201cwoman\u201d and “other gender exclusive language.”<\/p>\n

“Refer to \u2018people\u2019 not only \u2018women\u2019:\u00a0The right to decide if, when, or how to have children is a human right, not just a woman\u2019s right,” PRH wrote.<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Physicians for Reproductive Health PRH abortion language – Say this not That<\/p><\/div>\n

5) Refer to the Texas heartbeat law as a “near-total abortion ban”<\/strong><\/p>\n

In place of terms like \u201cheartbeat ban,\u201d PRH wants media to use \u201csix week abortion ban\u201d or \u201cnear-total abortion ban.\u201d<\/p>\n

PRH then warned journalists reporting on the Texas abortion law (SB8) to not use \u201cHandmaid\u2019s Tale\u201d or \u201cunderground railroad\u201d so as to not conflate with efforts in “ending slavery.”<\/p>\n

They also requested media refrain from “Islamophobic language” phrases like “Texas Taliban.\u201d<\/p>\n

6) Refer to “late abortion,” but never use “late-term” or “born alive”<\/strong><\/p>\n

While state reports prove<\/a> that babies are aborted up to birth and are sometimes even born alive<\/a>, the abortion industry and PRH don’t want the American public to be aware of this. PRH has instructed journalists to instead use terms like, \u201cabortion later in pregnancy\u201d or \u201clater abortion,\u201d instead of \u201clate-term abortion\u201d\u00a0 or \u201cborn-alive.\u201d<\/p>\n

7) Admit that abortion for reason of disability is rooted in ableism… because it will hurt pro-life laws<\/strong><\/p>\n

Surprisingly PRH got one point correct \u2014\u00a0that an abortion for the reason of a disability is rooted in ableism.<\/em><\/p>\n

PRH wrote:<\/p>\n

[Do] Not portray abortions that happen because of a fetal disability or anomaly as \u2018better\u2019 than other abortions:\u00a0The idea that abortion is more acceptable in cases where the fetus would not develop in an able-bodied way is rooted in ableism\u2014the mistreatment, prejudice, and discrimination towards disabled people and disabilities. <\/em><\/p>\n

This tactic allows those who want to ban abortion to push legislation that further restricts abortion on the basis of that specific medical necessity, while also banning abortions in most cases and only allowing it in the most dire circumstances.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

PRH also suggested that journalists “[p]rovide historical context about the reproductive coercion that disabled people have experienced in the U.S.: As many as 70,000 disabled people, people of color, and women were forcibly sterilized in the 20th century as a result of eugenicist ideologies,” they wrote.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, what PRH conveniently left out was the fact that many of the proponents<\/a> of forced sterilization were also outspoken<\/a> advocates of Planned Parenthood<\/a>, eugenics<\/a>, and even abortion<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Image:

Physicians for Reproductive Health PRH abortion language ableism and disability<\/p><\/div>\n

8) Illegal abortion = “self-managed” abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n

When it comes to the abortion pill and illegal abortions, PRH also has suggestions:<\/p>\n