This is how the Irish MSM are told to report on abortion. Article below;

Lobbyists fight to control the media’s language

‘Rather than using misleading language like ‘unborn baby or child’, which provide readers with images that are inaccurate, use the technically accurate terms of embryo or foetus, or simply say ‘the pregnancy’.”

So begins How to Report on Abortion: A Guide for Journalists and Citizen Communicators in Ireland, recently released by the Abortion Rights Campaign (ARC).

Lobby groups are forever trying to control language, and often supply journalists with “reporting guidelines”. Use certain words or terms and not others, the lobbyists will instruct. Be sure to report certain details, and omit others.

Two years ago the director of Oberstown detention centre drew up a language guide for journalists to “assist” reporting of youth justice. We were asked not to refer to inmates at Oberstown as thugs, yobs or criminals. No, they are “young people in conflict with the law”. I doubt the guidelines had much effect.

Others have, though. Mental health charities have eradicated words such as “schizo”, “loony” and “maniac” from even the tabloid press. The expression “committed suicide”, though idiomatic, has almost disappeared, because of the efforts of organisations such as the Samaritans.

You can see why the ARC would want to influence the words used in media reports on abortion, since the “pro-life movement” stole a march on them. Commandeering the term “pro-life” was its first coup, painting the opposition as somehow anti-life or even pro-death. Popularisation of the emotive term “unborn child” also tilted the playing pitch. “The term ‘unborn child’ is a recent anti-abortion invention and a contradiction in terms,” state the ARC’s media guidelines.

Bumpy road: the ARC rules out photos of late pregnancyALAMY

Now the group wants us to say “mandatory waiting period” rather than “cooling-off or reflection period”, as forcing a pregnant woman to wait before an abortion is “patronising and has no basis in medical evidence”. We should say “pregnant woman or person”, not “mother” or “parent”. We’re not to use the verb “abort”; the ARC recommends “terminate”. Nor say abortion is “illegal”; it’s “legally restricted”. There’s to be no mention of “exclusion zones” around hospitals; they’re “safe-access zones”.

It’s not only words that the ARC wants to control, but images, too. Out should go stigmatising or inaccurate visuals such as the “big bellies of late pregnancy and images that make a foetus or embryo look like a fully formed baby”. This is because most abortions happen before a woman is “showing” and before the foetus is fully formed.

The ARC’s proposed alternatives are somewhat absurd. It suggests photos of the annual March for Choice; a person speaking with a doctor; or “people working together in a community to raise awareness or increase understanding of the need for abortion services”. And what would that look like? A book club meeting in a suburban home, or a rally against a direct provision centre in some rural town?

Another image the ARC proposes we use, instead of the baby bump, is “elected officials working to advance abortion policy”. Like what? Health minister Simon Harris frowning with concentration, or wringing his hands?

Journalists should be wary of lobby groups proffering “reporting guidelines”, and must challenge those who seek to police language. Yet the most insistent lobbyists tend to get their way. Notice how groups looking for extra cash from the state will declare there’s a “funding crisis” in their sector, and how often the media uncritically adopts the term. The supposed never-ending crisis in Irish third level funding is but one example

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lobbyists-fight-to-control-the-media-s-language-hw2359rmr?shareToken=e4eb24e5e5b882eacc6db5958d3c454d