To the editor:

Twice last week, Journal-World headlines referred to pro-life activists as “anti-abortion.” It gets so old, this use of words to manipulate readers in the name of “objective” journalism. Are people who are fighting for the lives of unborn children never to be called “pro-life”? Are those who prefer that women retain the right to kill the babies never to be called “anti-life” or “anti-child?” Must you always describe us as “opposing” abortion, or could it be that we are actually “protecting rights of citizens” or “supporting human rights”?

When 140 idealistic young people undertake an arduous pilgrimage just to demonstrate solidarity with the defenseless and voice their affirmation of the highest possible understanding of human dignity can’t you do more than observe them going on an anti-choice field trip? The people you help demonize as anti-rights, anti-women are humanitarians of the highest order — investing selflessly in the lives of powerless people, taking time to remind society of what it means to be human, to be humane, and grieving over lives needlessly lost and women needlessly violated.

Surely, with Martin Luther King celebrations just over, you can imagine the impact you might have for good by describing this fight as one for justice to every human being, black, white, male, female, born and unborn. Haven’t we learned yet that there are no people-that-aren’t-really-human? It’s time to use words to protect them all.

Charlotte Ostermann,

Lawrence

Editor’s note: Like virtually all U.S. newspapers, the Journal-World follows the Associated Press Stylebook, which offers this guidance: “Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.”