For some reason, any sort of styleguide discussion always reminds me of this: <a href="https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1984_-_newspeak_dictionary.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...</a>
> Some doctors who opposed the bans say the term was developed as political tactic to win support for the bills.<p>Isn't this what all political bills are though? Often the fight over this stuff is over language? I mean we still have the Patriot act - no one feels the need to redefine how we talk about that one?<p>Also, considering this:<p>> “What’s interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.”<p>Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts?<p>Seems weird for the newspapers to not at least call the bills what the legislators are calling it and then explain why in long-form why they're wrong.