Here’s what we’ve come to in talking about abortion: The right has pushed so hard for non-scientific language that “I try to use neutral scientific language, but often that choice is perceived as supporting legal abortion,” a reproductive historian and law professor tells Poynter.

Neutral scientific language is seen as political because it’s not the nonscientific language favored by abortion opponents. Relatively few people even know what the scientific language would look like. Forget about babies; the word fetus isn’t even accurate until eight weeks’ gestation. Before that, you’re talking about an embryo, no matter what word you’re using. And that, combined with the fact that a heart doesn’t develop until later, means they’re not “fetal heartbeat” bills. They’re referring to “embryonic pulsing” or “the pulsing of what becomes the fetus’ heart” or "fetal pole cardiac activity."

But that’s so unfair, abortion opponents whine. How dare people try to replace their politicized language with accuracy? Here’s the thing, guys: Scientific language can be clunky. But it’s better than language weaponized against reality.