Five months ago, inflation, border security, and the economy were voters’ top issues. Last week, the New York Times headline chimed, “Abortion” is now the top issue for many voters. The subtitle could have read, “thanks to us and the rest of the news media.”

Almost daily, reporters ensure voters read or hear another news story about abortion. And it’s not a fact-based report on the issue or the ugly details in Prop 139, the proposed state Constitutional amendment expanding abortion in Arizona. It’s propaganda powerful enough to move abortion into the top tier for voters. This happens, in part, by beginning each story with a clear premise: abortion is “healthcare,” and the fringe are trying to take away your right to it. Take this report from the AZ Mirror titled, “Women who had abortion access when they needed it fight for future generations.” The article presumes women ‘need’ abortion, and those who have had abortions in the past are heroically fighting for girls and women in the future. The only controversy implied is the audacity of those standing in the way of this good.

The report goes on to tell three stories of women who “needed” abortions and claims that without Prop 139 they would have to be on death’s door before a doctor could perform an abortion to save them. All false, of course. Arizona’s current 15-week limit allows for broad exceptions in emergency situations. The truth isn’t the only thing missing from these kinds of reports; the unborn human life is rarely acknowledged.

Sometimes the irony of their own headlines is lost on them: “Once a liability for Democrats, abortion gets new life with Harris as nominee.” Besides the uncomfortable reference to ‘new life,’ the report quotes pro-abortion activists complaining about politicians who won’t proudly champion abortion or shy away from the word.

Which brings us to the power of words. You will find carefully chosen Associated Press approved words in every mainstream story on abortion you read, watch, or hear. A daily dose of “abortion care,” “reproductive healthcare,” abortion “providers,” “treating patients” can take its toll on how people think about abortion. When basic safety regulations in place to protect women getting abortions are turned into “barriers” to “healthcare,” and removing those safety regulations is “protecting access” to the “healthcare,” the reporter is nowhere near reporting the news. He or she is telling you how you should think and how you should vote. And when the abortion pill becomes “medication abortion,” it’s easier to swallow, and easier to see the “anti-abortion” crowd as standing in the way of “medicine.”

Incidentally, this report actually includes every single one of those terms in one report. And the New York Times, looking at pro-life laws in various states, says their report is “tracking restrictions.”

So, you can see how the news media approach the issue of abortion even from the initial story idea, not from the perspective of competing values or beliefs, and certainly not from a scientific or moral view, but based on the very talking points of the pro-abortion industry.

When those carefully chosen words are replaced with unbiased terms, clarity seems to revive, at least according to a recent poll. A large North Carolina poll taken last month phrased the abortion question in a more straight forward way, void of buzz words or certain week limits. It found that most “pro-choice” voters support significant limitations on abortion.

“Respondents were asked if they would support or oppose allowing abortion only under these four circumstances:

1) when it is necessary to save the life of the mother

2) when there is a medical emergency posing a serious risk of substantial irreversible physical harm to the mother

3) in cases of rape

4) in cases of incest.

71% said they would support such a proposal–51% strongly– while only 22% opposed it.”

If most voters agree with limiting abortion to just these cases, we could save millions of lives.

CAP is focusing on the sanctity of life and the threats to it through the month of September. On Wednesday, the 18th, I will host a webinar with Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and co-author of Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, and Seth Troutt, Teaching Pastor at Ironwood Church.

I hope you will join us as we discuss critical and timely issues related to protecting life.

Wednesday, September 18, 7:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.