By Dave Andrusko
Yesterday we explored the decision by the Associated Press’s Stylebook to eliminate “late-term abortion.” As we’ll see momentary, that’s just the beginning.
“Do not use the term ‘late-term abortion,’” The AP intoned. “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines late term as 41 weeks through 41 weeks and 6 days of gestation, and abortion does not happen in this period.”
This reminded me of Groucho Marx’s famous quip, “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
The last week of a pregnancy is the ONLY time you can use “late-term abortion,” and, come to think of it, since “abortion does not happen in this period,” voila, no late-term abortion, right?
Does anyone not on the abortion industry’s payroll (or in its thrall, like the AP) believe that nonsense? Who is their source? Planned Parenthood []? Of course they don’t have a vested interest, right? So when they tell us “There’s no such thing as a ‘late-term abortion,’” we can take that to the bank, correct?
And it would be difficult to get any more pro-abortion than the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the AP’s second source. In “ACOG’s attempts to change the way we talk about abortion are anything but neutral,” Laura Nicole provides background.
But…there’s more. The AP has reversed field once again. The Stylebook—really the handbook for most reporters—now says “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are outdated.
“[U]se the modifiers anti-abortion or abortion-rights; don’t use pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion unless they are in quotes or proper names. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.”
Imagine that, calling a man (it’s usually a man) who performs abortions an abortionist. Stop the presses.
“Abortion-rights” begs the question. There is no “right,” or ought not to be, to kill an innocent baby. And, to state the obvious, when you add “rights” to the description, besides being positive, it implies something that is settled.
And who is the world would want themselves to be labeled “anti”-anything. Plus National Right to Life has opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide since its inception.
The first issue of National Right to Life News explained why we oppose these infringements on basic human rights as vigorously as we do the destruction of unborn children.
Poor job, Associated Press, a very poor and unbalanced job indeed.