Headline writers have a favorite new buzzword for articles covering abortion legalization, and it’s ruining journalistic integrity.

The Associated Press in February: “New Hampshire Senate rejects enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution.”

Bloomberg Law News in November: “Ohio Voters Enshrined Abortion, But Courts Will Decide its Reach.”

The New York Times on March 4: “French Lawmakers Enshrine Access to Abortion in Constitution.”

The word “enshrine” has two meanings. One means to place  something in a physical shrine, a structure regarded as holy. The other definition — used by journalists in these articles — means “to preserve or cherish [something] as sacred,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Why do journalists think this verb is appropriate in hard-news pieces covering abortion? They might as well say abortion was “consecrated” in the constitution.

It’s a clear case of propaganda. This kind of loaded phrasing seeks to make the reader subconsciously accept that abortion is not just good, but “sacred.” When journalists use the word “enshrine,” it artificially sanctifies the pro-abortion argument. It’s a way of claiming their opinion is true, without having to go through the trouble of proving it.

Rhetoric shapes not just the political sphere, but the way that people think. In George Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language,” he warns against this inaccurate usage of words. “[I]f thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.”

The bare minimum requirement of a journalist is to understand what words mean. So, these journalists either have a second-grade vocabulary — which is unlikely for the majority of them — or they know better, and choose to abuse language anyway.

Although it’s common for pro-abortion journalists to use loaded phrases when covering abortion in the news, they have mostly stuck to secular-humanist rhetoric, with phrases such as “pro-choice,” “reproductive rights,” or “the right to bodily autonomy.” But now, by appropriating  religious language, abortion activists are attempting to legitimize their godless arguments using godly authority. Unless pro-abortionists are willing to admit that their ideology is a kind of religion — a religion whose beliefs they are trying to force on the rest of us — they have no business sullying and abusing religious language.

If journalists are dead-set on using positive terminology when covering a controversial topic, they should at least use words that don’t violate journalistic integrity. The words “legalize,” “protect,” and even “safeguard” are reasonable alternatives. More accurate headlines would read something like “Ohio Voters Legalized Abortion…,” “New Hampshire Senate rejects including abortion…,” and “French Lawmakers Protect Access to Abortion in Constitution.” The fact that the writers chose “enshrine” over these options is proof enough of biased intentions.

People can debate whether abortion is good, bad, or somewhere in between. But abortion is not holy, so stop implying that it is.