And, it seems that the kids in Coppell, Texas (near Dallas) are only “anti-abortion” because of the undue influence of their families and churches. From the Dallas Morning News:
Abortion rights advocates say it’s even harder for them to organize high school students because of the focus on abstinence.
“We’re up against a movement that has federal dollars going into public schools,” said Kierra Johnson, director of Choice USA. “You compound that with what they could be learning in church, and it sets us back in terms of outreach to young people under 18.”
Of course, the Dallas Morning News calls the club “anti-abortion,” not “pro-life.” In spite of the fact that the kids call themselves “The Pro-Life Club.” The author calls for tolerance on the part of the “anti-abortion crowd but can’t even bring herself to use the term the teens would prefer.
I guess the DMN doesn’t keep up with the latest research. Otherwise, they’d know that the study on abstinence that was in the news earlier this month informed us that teens – whether they sign a pledge or not – who come from religious, conservative backgrounds are more likely to delay their first intercourse for about 3 years longer than their peers. I nominate the author of the article,Katherine Leal Unruth, her editor, and Ms. Johnson for Twits of the Year and definitely award them my own Yellow Brick Road award. (“Do Not Look Behind the Curtain, Ignore That Little Man.” Or small woman.)
Bravo Coppell teens, their parents, and their churches!
LifeEthics 
>Welcome to politics. It's too important a game to play fairly.
Posted by Suricou Raven | January 18, 2009, 3:02 pm>What you are seeing is a result of the AP or Dallas Morning News style book (every news organization has a style book). Pro-life is translated as "anti-abortion" in the style book. You will note that when using the name of a group or in a direct quote, the phrase "pro-life" is used.
Posted by Anonymous | January 19, 2009, 9:10 pm>Yes, see what anonymous said. I don't know how much you know about journalism, but the author of the article was following the journalistic code of ethics that is set for every newspaper across the country. She (and/or her editor), did their research and wrote the correct thing. Unlike you.Politics? Bah.
Posted by Anonymous | September 3, 2009, 5:57 am>Anon 2, It appears that you don't understand the purpose of editorial comments on blogs. The point of the post (way last January) was that, in my opinion, the style book or habit is wrong and politically motivated. I'm sure you don't mean that the "code of ethics" is uniform across the country. As Anon 1 said, each organization has its own stylebook.If consistency or clarity were intended, the author would use either the group's chosen designation or use "abortion" in the pro- and anti- cases.
Posted by LifeEthics.org | September 3, 2009, 2:40 pm