Following in the media’s kowtowing to abortion activists who seek to change the language to make abortion sound less horrific, CNN is now suggesting there is a difference between a baby who survived an abortion and all other babies.

In an article slanted heavily toward abortion CNN actually described the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act as requiring “abortion providers to work to ‘preserve the life and health’ of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby, or face up to five years in prison.”

In CNN’s world, a “fetus that was born” is not the same as a “newborn baby,” apparently simply due to the fact that one was wanted and the other was nearly killed.

Beyond the disturbing euphemism that tries to dehumanize a baby that survives an abortion, CNN also referred to the Born-Alive Act as an “anti-abortion” bill, even though the bill doesn’t place any restrictions on a woman’s ability to get an abortion, it only states that newborn babies should get health care. The media has been deliberately misrepresenting this bill for more than a year in an attempt to paint supporters as trying to limit a woman’s ability to choose. Despite their best efforts, even two Democrat senators – Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Doug Jones of Alabama – have supported the bill previously and indicated this week they will do so again.

Earlier this month, the Born Alive act was again misrepresented by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who claimed the bill was “a solution to a problem that does not exist,” even though the problem does, in fact, exist. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), responded to Hirono’s claims that laws against infanticide apply in these cases and that the bill is really about restricting a woman’s ability to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

“Infanticide is indeed illegal in the U.S., and yet in half of the states, there is no criminalization of walking away from the baby and allowing it to die by exposure,” Sasse responded. “There’s an active-passive distinction and a state-federal distinction which are both pretty fundamental.”

Hirono cited a 2002 bill that made it illegal to kill an infant, but that law didn’t specify what health care providers had to do in order to care for the child and it didn’t include punishments for providers who simply allowed the child to die without helping.

The media has been trying to dehumanize unborn babies for years. Last year, as states across the country passed laws banning abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, abortion proponents and their supporters in the media rushed to find a way to avoid calling it a “heartbeat.” The New York Times, for example, referred to it first as “embryonic pulsing” and then as “the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’s heart beat.” Abortion champion Dr. Jen Gunter previously referred to the heartbeat as “fetal pole cardiac activity.”

In the past, other abortion proponents have tried to claim a baby in the womb is not a baby, but a “potential person,” or a “clump of cells.”