SPUC has defended Amol Rajan’s right to objective journalism after the BBC reporter was denounced for using the term “pro-life” on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. SPUC also noted that critics of Rajan continue to use the “euphemistic, profoundly dishonest phrase that is ‘pro-choice’”. It is abortion apologists, says SPUC, who seek to “manipulate” language in defence of the objectively “indefensible” act of abortion.

Amol Rajan’s use of the term “pro-life”, describing opponents of abortion, was labelled “deceitful” by abortion apologists. Mr Rajan used the term twice on-air while reporting on the aftermath of the overturning of Roe vs Wade last Friday.

On 24 June, the US Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling that legalised abortion throughout the country. Following the decision on Friday, every US state may now decide its own abortion law. Several states have already elected to ban abortion.

This was a “momentous day”, said SPUC, as pro-lifers around the world rejoiced.

Commentating on the decision, Mr Rajan said: “This is not the end but the end of the beginning. Because for many pro-life groups, for the pro-life coalition who have been campaigning for this for many, many years... there’s a lot more they want to achieve.”

Later, he added: “The argument from the pro-life organisations is that life is life.”

Journalists pressured to reject term “pro-life”

Mr Rajan reportedly ignored the BBC’s in-house style guide that advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.

However, a BBC spokesperson said: “The style guide suggests anti-abortion as the preferred term, but the use of the term pro-life by presenters and contributors is not against the BBC’s editorial guidelines.”

Despite this, there have been calls for Mr Rajan to quit. Dr Hannah Barham-Brown, deputy leader of the Women’s Equality Party, said it was “disappointing” that Mr Rajan used the “facade” term pro-life.

Another activist, Frances Ryan, claimed “pro-life” was a “deceitful term” being used to “manipulate the debate”.

Desperate abortion apologists losing grip on narrative

SPUC’s Michael Robinson, Executive Director (Public Affairs and Legal Services), said: “Abortion apologists are rattled after being dealt a significant blow by the overturning of Roe vs Wade. Reeling from this decision, they have even begun to lash out at journalists reporting on the case objectively.

“The term ‘pro-life’ is broadly used by many individuals and groups advocating for an end to abortion. Mr Rajan’s use of this identifier was entirely within the bounds of objective journalism. The fact that so many pro-abortion activists have condemned Mr Rajan shows the frantic lengths to which they will go to control the language of the debate. It smacks of desperation.

“Not only do abortion activists disagree with the phrase ‘pro-life’, but they are not even prepared to countenance its mere utterance on the public stage. It is they who seek to ‘manipulate’ the debate by not allowing it to take place in the first place.

“Abortion activists in the US and the UK are clearly alarmed because they rightly sense they are losing their grip on the abortion narrative that they have for so long sought to manipulate. Slowly but surely, the pro-life movement is winning ground.

“Meanwhile, abortion apologists shamelessly utilise the euphemistic, profoundly dishonest phrase that is ‘pro-choice’, covering up the brutal reality of abortion, where unborn babies, who are given no choice other than death, are killed every day around the world.

“The overturning of Roe vs Wade, while not banning abortion outright, will at least now allow US states their own choice. The people may now decide for themselves. Rather than relying on the imposition of abortion from above, abortion apologists are now forced to argue their case – a case that, they know deep down, is ultimately indefensible.”