|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
The liberal terminology of abortion
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | None Entered |
| Last Edited | None Entered Jun 12, 2004 12:21pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Perspective |
| Media | Newspaper - Boston Globe |
| News Date | Sunday, June 6, 2004 06:00:00 AM UTC0:0 |
| Description | A FEDERAL judge in San Francisco last week struck down as unconstitutional a recent federal law that bans partial-birth abortion. Or is that what it bans? Consider how the illegal procedure was identified in news accounts of last week's ruling:
ADVERTISEMENT
Newsday: "Doctors call it intact dilation and extraction but abortion foes refer to it as `partial-birth abortion.' "
National Public Radio: "Partial-birth abortion is a term used by opponents for what doctors call intact dilation and extraction."
Washington Post: "The ban on the procedure that critics call `partial-birth abortion' was already on hold temporarily as three courts heard legal challenges to it."
NBC: "A federal judge declared the so-called `partial-birth abortion' act unconstitutional on Tuesday."
San Francisco Chronicle: "The ruling deals with what opponents call `partial-birth abortion.' "
Why the circumlocutions? In journalism, short and clear is better than long and wordy; reporters generally don't have the space or time to reach for periphrastic phrasings when something more direct is available. Yet when it comes to partial-birth abortion, many of them suddenly feel compelled to distance themselves from a familiar and straightforward term. Why?
|
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
