revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work... We should use "abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)" and "abortion rights opponent(s)" or derivations thereof (for example: "advocates of abortion rights"). It is acceptable to use the phrase "anti-abortion", but do not use the term "pro-abortion rights".Social theorist Pierre Bourdieu would have described calling anti-choice activists pro-life as a form of "symbolic violence." For Bourdieu, the symbolic order of things is a way of keeping the status quo in place. The economy and culture rely on symbolic violence as a way of getting us to either ignore social inequality or to accept it as natural. Using the term "pro-life" in supposedly objective journalism is a form of violence that marks those opposed to abortion rights as "ethical" and those in support of abortion rights as unethical sorts, selfish and self-interested people who just want "choice" as if it's the same as deciding between flavors of ice cream. I mean, who isn't pro-life? Who wants to be identified as "anti-life" even if only by innuendo? Why would the press acquiesce to the "pro-life" language given that this is a profession devoted to language? And what sort of symbolic violence was done to abortion rights because of it? Perhaps the press was afraid of the Christian fundamentalist revolution that took over much of our political leadership during the past few decades? Perhaps the press was unwilling to call a spade a spade because it did not wish to become marginalized in the power structures as they tried to survive under the various Neocons who have been running this country? And perhaps the shift in the use of language, the end of symbolic violence against women who have abortions and abortion advocates, symbolizes a slightly different order of things? We may now have a political order where most of the people in charge are no longer slaves to a radical religious movement. And the few politicians who continue to kowtow to the likes of the Tea Party are no longer able to claim that they represent anything but the most radical right fringe of America .