The UK-based Guardian newspaper has declared war on the pro-life movement, adopting a reproductive rights lexicon as dictated by the abortion lobby.
“The Guardian will no longer use the term ‘heartbeat bill’ in reference to the restrictive abortion bans that are moving through state legislatures in the US,” the paper announced last week, as part of its commitment to keep abortion-on-demand legal.
The once-respectable British daily is not even bothering to maintain a veneer of objectivity in its abortion coverage and will now openly act as a propaganda arm for the abortion industry.
“The right-to-choose in America is under serious threat for the first time in generations. With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, there could be devastating consequences if Roe v Wade is overturned,” the paper warned.
“The Supreme Court is now stacked against the progressive ideals we believe are critical to progress, and the decision makers are wildly misrepresentative of the women whose lives will be altered,” the Guardian editors announce.
Even prior to this month’s revisions, the Guardian style guide already encouraged the use of “anti-abortion” over “pro-life” and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion,” the paper declared, insisting that the vocabulary preferences are motivated by a desire “for clarity.”
It is not immediately evident why the Guardian considers “pro-choice” clearer that “pro-abortion,” since “pro-choice” does not even mention what is being chosen and obviously does not refer to every possible human choice.
“We want to avoid medically inaccurate, misleading language when covering women’s reproductive rights,” the Guardian’s US editor-in-chief, John Mulholland, said. “These are arbitrary bans that don’t reflect fetal development – and the language around them is often motivated by politics, not science.”
The Guardian has joined National Public Radio (NPR) and other left-wing news outlets in weaponizing language to recover lost ground in the abortion battle, a tactic recommended by abortion giant Planned Parenthood.
Last month, NPR announced updates to its own in-house style guide, warning its staff to use language that does not accidentally humanize the unborn child.
According to the guide, NPR may not speak of unborn or pre-born babies since “a baby is not a baby until it is born.”
Employees are likewise forbidden from referring to “fetal heartbeat” legislation, because at six weeks, when a heartbeat can first be detected, the mother is carrying an “embryo” and not a “fetus.”
As in the case of NPR, the Guardian’s new censorship measures are a reaction to victories by the pro-life movement in the United States.
“The Guardian’s updated style guide comes as a wave of restrictive abortion bans are sweeping the US,” the newspaper states, adding that “between 1 January and 20 May, 378 abortion restrictions were introduced across the United States.”
In embracing an unapologetic pro-abortion stance, the Guardian has taken a further step in its ongoing transformation into a political advocacy rag.
Last month, the Guardian updated its style guide in another area: that of climate change.
The paper declared that it will no longer use the term “climate skeptics” to describe those who question reigning beliefs regarding anthropogenic climate change but will label them as “climate deniers.”
In an article in May, the Guardian explained it had revised its style guide to turn up the heat on global warming, adopting new terminology meant to alarm readers and incite them to action.
“Instead of ‘climate change’ the preferred terms are ‘climate emergency, crisis or breakdown’ and ‘global heating’ is favoured over ‘global warming,’ although the original terms are not banned,” the article stated.