Abortion's loaded language

"Prochoice" has a lofty sound to it -- everyone knows choice is good, right? -- so newspapers use the more detached "abortion rights-advocate" instead. Likewise, a "prolife" advocate becomes an "abortion opponent" in print.

Now comes the congressional vote banning a certain type, or types, of abortions used in the second and third trimesters. With the vote comes a new set of word-choice problems.

Although "intact dilation and extraction" is the medical term most often used for the to-be-banned procedure, the bill is widely known by a more graphic phrase -- "partial-birth abortion." Indeed, abortion foes wrote that name into their legislation from the start and made it the title.

So what should a newspaper do? Use the neutral but not commonly recognized medical term or use the more graphic phrase -- which fails the neutrality test but is the official name and the one readers easily recognize?

It's not easy for an ombudsman to favor what amounts to loaded language but, in this case, I believe it's the lesser wrong. Readers' clarity trumps political correctness. Using "partial-birth abortion" is unavoidable, despite its baggage.

That said, I believe that every story using "partial-birth abortion" should also point out the phrase's antiabortion authorship. Making that an automatic pairing -- the phrase and its origin -- and reserving medical terminology to describe clinical procedure, not the bill, comes as close to fairness as possible in this less-than-ideal situation.

The Globe stylebook's entry on abortion doesn't address the "partial-birth" question. But in the wake of discussions in the newsroom (and with this office) the phrase and its qualifiers have regularly appeared in the paper.

"The words used in the abortion debate are as politically charged as the subject itself," says Nina Easton, the deputy chief of the Globe's Washington Bureau. "We want to avoid even the appearance of bias."

Just how to do that has prompted newsroom discussions. For example, the Chicago Tribune's stylebook lists "partial-birth abortion" as a loaded term that should be avoided, but that newspaper's ombudsman says he disagrees. At Washington and Lee University, Louis Hodges, Knight professor of ethics in journalism, issued a challenge to reporters to distance themselves from the phrase he says the "hoodwinked" media accepted far too readily.

Indeed, the "partial-birth abortion" label has become so common that it is now listed in the Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary. (Like everything else in this debate, definitions are in dispute. Abortion foes say "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dilation and extraction" are overlapping procedures but not synonymous; others say they are interchangeable.)

Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Mass., says she would prefer that the Globe not use the "partial birth" phrase at all -- it is, she says, "designed to make people disgusted" -- but she acknowledges that is how the legislation is known. So, if it must be used, she says, it should come with qualifiers, such as "so-called."

She urges, too, that the legislation be described as outlawing a range of common and safe abortion procedures. The bill's supporters insist it applies only to a single gruesome and medically unnecessary procedure. (The courts will decide. Abortion rights advocates, knowing President Bush intended to sign the bill this week, filed a legal challenge on Friday.)

Both sides monitor the coverage closely for what they view as lapses in fairness. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the Right to Life Committee in Washington, is in regular touch with the Globe. He has pressed the paper to tell readers the majority of "partial-birth abortions" are of healthy fetuses carried by healthy mothers.

There are no hard numbers on why women who have "partial-birth abortions" do so, but reports from clinics suggest the reasons are indeed varied -- from cases of serious fetal abnormalities to cases involving rape to unwed teens who don't know they are pregnant until their second trimester.

Suffice it to say that Globe stories should generally reflect a variety of circumstances.

One last directive: When stories note that the "partial-birth abortion" ban offers no exemption to protect the health of the mother, the story should also note that there is an exemption to protect the life of the mother. Again, the pairing of the facts serves overall fairness.

The emotional debate over this legislation has obscured the truth in too many cases and often left journalists without a template for fair and accurate coverage. Negotiating the emotional terrain of the abortion debate requires an extra measure of care and extra-thorough reporting. The stakes are too high to give it anything less.

The ombudsman represents the readers. Her opinions and conclusions are her own. Phone 617-929-3020 or, to leave a message, 929-3022. Our e-mail address is ombud@globe.com.