On September 7th the Chicago Tribune printed a letter written as an IRLC press release entitled “Paul Hill was not Pro-Life nor is he a martyr”. The letter was intended to challenge claims that the execution of Paul Hill would lead to more violence against abortionists because Paul Hill would be considered a martyr by Pro-Lifers. Among points made were these:

· No religious or Pro-Life (anti-abortion) organizations agree with Hill’s logic. Murder can never be justified as a means to end abortion. Since they recognize his actions as wrong, Pro-Life (anti-abortion) citizens will not consider Hill a martyr after his execution.

· Concern for both mothers and their children motivates Pro-Life (anti-abortion) citizens to demand legal protection for all human life from conception to natural death. Hill and his two vocal supporters will not distract the Pro-Life (anti-abortion) movement from that mission.

You may wonder why the phrase “anti-abortion” appears in parentheses after each occurrence of “Pro-Life”. In each of those cases, and every other case in my letter, the Tribune changed “Pro-Life” to “anti-abortion”. Does this change the meaning? Why would someone who is anti-abortion seek protection for all human life from conception to natural death? What if the heading was changed to “Paul Hill was not anti-abortion nor is he a martyr” instead of shortened to “Hill no martyr”? It would become a false statement because Paul Hill was anti-abortion, but not Pro-Life.

The Tribune Voice of the People editor justified the bias based on the “relevant” provision of the Tribune stylebook which reads: “Except in direct quotations or proper names, do not refer to people or groups as pro-life or pro-abortion .... If a shorthand description is needed, use abortion opponents, anti-abortion; abortion-rights proponents, pro-abortion rights.”

This style rule is openly biased because it changes “Pro-Life” to “anti-abortion” while changing “pro-abortion” to “pro-abortion rights”. Introducing the concept of rights improves the image of “pro-abortion” while clearly “anti-abortion” is very negative compared to “Pro-Life”. But the biggest bias is the unstated one – “pro-choice” is not covered by the style rule even though it is the most misleading term of all. The Tribune allows free use of “pro-choice” when this phrase is clearly understood to be a shrouded way to express “pro-abortion” in a more positive light.

Tribune Public Editor Don Wycliff did bring a breath of fresh air to the issue when he wrote in his September 25th column, “For several reasons this provision has never sat well with me. Among other things, it reduces the concerns of the “pro-life” movement to abortion, which is manifestly not the case.” He concluded, “My personal attitude would be that letters amount to direct quotations, and so fall under that exception.” Will we see a change in Tribune policy? Don’t hold your breath!

Bill Beckman