Better than nothing, I guess.

Here is the original GetReligion post on this latest example of a familiar debate in Associated Press style and newsroom politics.

Year after year, debates about abortion continue to raise questions about ethics, politics, morality and science — as well as arguments about language and style in journalism.

The latest, of course, focuses on the legal status of a baby that is born accidentally — perhaps during a botched abortion — as opposed to being delivered intentionally. If you think that is a relatively black-and-white issue, then talk to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam. Meanwhile, what role should the beliefs of doctors and parents, secular or religious, play in this discussion?

Some readers may flinch because I used the term “baby” in that previous paragraph. However, in this case we are discussing the status of a human being who has already been born. Meanwhile, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary continues to define “fetus” as:

… an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind

specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

This brings us to another Twitter storm involving journalists and activists in this ongoing debate. The hook, this time, was a CNN report with this headline: “Two abortion restriction bills that forced tough votes for vulnerable senators fail in the Senate.”

Two bills that restrict abortion procedures? Well, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act certainly fits that description, since it would ban abortions at 20 weeks. But what about this next clump of language from editors at CNN.com:

The second bill to be considered Tuesday is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, that would require abortion providers to work to "preserve the life and health" of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby, or face up to five years in prison. Opponents have argued that such measures restrict abortion access by threatening health care providers. …

Speaking on the Senate floor before the vote on Tuesday, Sasse looked to differentiate his bill from Graham's 20-week bill, claiming that while he supported both measures, his bill "is not in any way an abortion bill. … It is addressing some cases of infant mortality by making sure that babies that have survived abortion get care."

The scientific and ethical question, of course, is this: What is the difference between a “fetus that was born” and a “newborn baby,” if a fetus is scientifically defined by its status as “unborn”?

Politically speaking, the answer appears to be simple: A “newborn baby” is one that is welcomed.

It’s clear, at this point, that managers at the Associated Press know that this awkward issue exists, in part because of the clash between the “fetus” language of science and the baby-centric words most people use when talking about unborn children in welcomed pregnancies. This clash frequently shows up in direct quotations in news reports.

(Of course, the neutral pronoun “it” also works, according to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as quoted by Sen. Elizabeth Warren during the most recent Democratic Party presidential-race debate.)

It would appear, at this point, that CNN producers are using a politically defined definition of the word “fetus,” signalling their support for one side of this debate in the public square. Later in the report there is this:

Abortion rights supporters attacked the bills as thinly veiled attempts to curtail abortion access.

Jacqueline Ayers, Planned Parenthood's vice president of government relations and public policy, said in a statement Monday that "these bills push misinformation meant to end access to abortion, and serve no other purpose than to shame patients and deny people the ability to make the best medical decisions for themselves and their families."

The need to offer treatment to babies that are accidentally born alive would certainly raise legal, medical and financial questions for those who operate abortion facilities. If that is the issue that is at the heart of this debate, then why not cover it?

Just asking.