Contraceptive misinformation and disinformation has proliferated at a concerning rate since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision allowed states to ban or regulate abortion. Huge majorities of U.S. adults are confused about the legality of contraception, and incorrectly believe that contraception may end a pregnancy in its early stages. Combined with a low national literacy about the medical process of becoming pregnant, these conditions have resulted in media coverage that inadvertently promulgates misinformation.

Mainstream media reporting has a significant impact on the trajectory of misinformation and the erosion of access to reliable contraception. In spite of a growing number of excellent media stories that report on escalating threats to contraceptive access, there remain some media trends that promulgate misinformation or confusion.

This report examines mainstream media trends that can perpetuate contraceptive misinformation and fuel efforts to curb access to contraceptives. There are two major sections of the report:

  1. Background on the medical and scientific debate that is foundational to nearly every contraceptive policy debate.

  2. Common journalism practices that can fuel misinformation and public confusion.

This report is a companion to:

Medical science locates the beginning of pregnancy at the implantation phase. Any medication or device that interferes with the process of becoming pregnant prior to implantation is considered contraception, while any medications or device that impacts a pregnancy post-implantation is tied to abortion or miscarriage.  

However, some conservatives and religious leaders are rejecting established medical science and attempting to redefine the medical definition of when pregnancy begins. As illustrated below, this redefinition would result in shrinking the period in the pregnancy process that would be considered preventing pregnancy, and expanding the period in the pregnancy process that would be considered ending a pregnancy.  

This proposed redefinition makes the biological period between fertilization and implantation the primary battleground for contraceptive policy.

The anti-abortion movement’s language about contraception often includes words or phrases that do not have an official definition, such as “pre-implantation chemical abortion” or “abortifacient contraception” or “potential abortifacient.” For instance, Project 2025 “Mandate For Leadership,” published by The Heritage Foundation, refers to emergency contraception as a “potential abortifacient” that they want removed from HRSA’s contraceptive mandate.  Words that are easily misinterpreted by the public when used in a policy context, such as “conception” and “when life begins,” are also dominant in the public conversation about these issues. 

For example, Tennessee's near-total abortion ban, in effect since August 2022, incorrectly defines the state of being pregnant as:  

“The human female reproductive condition of having a living unborn child within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal stages of the unborn child from fertilization until birth.”

Most hormonal contraception primarily works to prevent fertilization either by preventing ovulation or diminishing the ability for the egg and the sperm to unite. Some theorize that in some cases, hormonal contraception can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. From a medical science perspective, these distinctions have no bearing on abortion, because all of those mechanisms occur prior to the medical start of pregnancy. However, for those with a personal belief that the start of pregnancy is sooner in the process, when the egg and sperm are united, the potential and theoretical disruption of implantation equates in their belief system to abortion. Although most proponents of this theory focus on objection to emergency contraception and  IUDs, the theory is applied by some high-influence groups to all forms of hormonal contraception, including the birth control pill. 

This also impacts policy related to in vitro fertilization (IVF). If the beginning of pregnancy is redefined as fertilization, a fertilized egg in a petri dish would be considered an active pregnancy, even before it is implanted in a human body. 

CAI identified six reporting trends that can spur misinformation when reporting on contraception, in particular news reporting on policies that govern contraceptive access.

Describing opponents of contraceptive access as “anti-abortion” rather than a contraceptive-rooted term, and allowing groups opposing contraceptive access to self describe as “neutral” on contraception.

  • Reporting on a political debate in a way that obscures medical science facts, including allowing disinformation claims in stories about scientific advancement.

  • Using disinformation and politicized terms in news stories.

  • Overlooking anti-contraception policies in bills touting support for contraception.

  • Ignoring threats to contraception and IVF when reporting on abortion policy, potentially fueling the disinformation conflation of contraception and abortion.

  • Editorial confusion when multiple reproductive health stories overlap.

Each of these trends are described below.

A political battle over characterizing threats to contraception has escalated significantly since the SCOTUS Dobbs decision on abortion. An in-depth report on attacks on contraception can be found here.

Conservatives have aggressively denied that contraception is threatened, while progressives have escalated contraceptive access concerns. Journalists reporting on these competing narratives routinely position pro-contraception efforts as political opportunism rather than framing the issues primarily as a public health story. 

Polls show a sharp partisan divide on the question of whether contraception is at risk of being curbed, with overwhelming nonpartisan agreement about opposition to efforts that will diminish access to contraception. 

Source: CAI x Bellwether, December 2024 poll: “Public Opinion on Contraception & IVF”

At the heart of this partisan battleground is how the media defines an attack on contraception. While extensive revisions to style guides about abortion coverage have proliferated in recent years, there is a paucity of guidance on contraceptive coverage.

Allowing a redefinition — and shrinking — of contraception to be defined as “neutral”

Every major group and virtually every politician who has supported curbing access to contraception self-describes as “anti-abortion” or “neutral” on contraception. The reproductive health movement considers these actions to be hostile to contraception — and voters across party lines are very hostile to the idea of making contraceptive access harder. Nevertheless, the trend across media outlets is to allow the anti-abortion lobby to claim neutrality in spite of its policy actions, as illustrated in the chart below:

The Wall Street Journal editorial board confirmed the standard of calling a group of leaders anti-contraception equating to a total ban on contraception in a 2022 editorial, “Alito Doesn’t Want Your Contraceptives.” Other outlets have allowed groups working against contraception to self-define as “neutral” with an “anti-abortion” agenda: 

The Contraceptive Access Initiative proposes new editorial standards for media outlets characterizing the positions of groups and elected officials on contraception:

  • Do not describe opponents of contraceptive policies as “anti-abortion.” Instead, use terms related to contraception. 

  • Define neutrality related to contraception as having no positions on matters concerning the use of contraception to prevent pregnancy.

  • Do not simply use the bilateral “pro-contraception” or “anti-contraception” to describe the positions of groups and policymakers.  Instead, be specific, such as “pro-contraceptive restrictions,” “anti-contraception” or “anti-all contraception.”

  • Define groups that oppose the current medical definition of contraception as “anti-contraception.”

Many media stories about policies and campaigns attempting to redefine the start of pregnancy present the impact of these efforts as a political debate, rather than reporting through the prism of established medical science.

Medical science framing versus political opponents framing

The following example illustrates a medical science-based approach versus a debate approach to reporting on the definition of contraception. The federal “Life at Conception” legislation confers “equal protection” to “human person” and “human being,” which is defined as “including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.” Below, one media outlet relies on a medical science view of this legislation’s impact, and the other presents its impact as a political debate.

Medical science approach: UPI recognized the threat to contraception by writing that the “Life at Conception Act” would ban some forms of birth control.

“Garcia was a co-sponsor for the Life at Conception Act which would ban abortion nationwide as well as some forms of birth control.” 

Political debate approach: Most articles about the Life at Conception Act do not plainly state the impact on contraception and instead frame it as a political debate. 

“Anti-abortion advocates say the bill is common sense. Abortion rights activists believe it is a gateway for restricting contraception & IVF.”

Journalists attempting to help readers understand the mechanics of the pregnancy process can inadvertently fuel misinformation. For example, NPR’s in-depth guide on pregnancy omits any reference to the medical definition of pregnancy, which is used by federal law and the medical community. Without referencing medical science, the issue appears to be a political one, rather than medical:

“Defining exactly when a pregnancy begins is a hot topic in some state legislatures and U.S. courts at the moment. While federal law has long said pregnancy starts after a fertilized egg has implanted in the uterus, state law in Kentucky, for example, calls someone pregnant as soon as a sperm meets the egg.”

Advocates who conflate abortion and contraception routinely advance unfounded scientific claims that get woven into media stories and potentially further misinformation. Below are two examples, 1) a potential new medication abortion regimen using an ingredient from a contraceptive, and 2) a potential new contraceptive using a drug that is part of an abortion protocol.

UPA: a potential new medication abortion regimen

The facts: A new study identified ulipristal acetate (UPA) — the main ingredient of FDA-approved emergency contraception, Ella, which requires a prescription — as a potential alternative to mifepristone when taken at a higher dose and in combination with misoprostol. Extensive research has demonstrated that Ella can prevent someone from getting pregnant but has no impact on an existing pregnancy. This preliminary and exploratory research indicates that UPA may be an effective option for medication abortion when taken at a higher dose and when UPA is used in combination with misoprostol. It is also important to note that misoprostol alone has been extensively studied and has been found to be an effective regimen for medication abortion.  

The disinformation: Nevertheless, contraception and abortion opponents used this advancement to make the unfounded claim that emergency contraception can end a pregnancy. (See an explanation of the political repercussions of the study in NEJM here).

Some media coverage advanced this misinformation in its writing or included nonfactual quotes from contraceptive opponents who advanced misinformation.

 The Atlantic headline wrongly stated that UPA may be a pathway to skirt state abortion laws without any justification for how the drug might do that.

The New York Times included quotes from a group that is opposed to all hormonal contraception —  SFLA — wrongly stating that the study proves emergency contraception can cause abortion.

Mifepristone: a potential new contraceptive

The facts: For many years, some scientists have pursued the promise of a highly effective non-hormonal oral contraceptive using the drug mifepristone. This drug is currently part of the two-drug medication abortion regimen. Some research has shown promise for mifepristone, at a lower dosage and without being combined with misoprostol, to prevent pregnancy. 

The disinformation: Some activists wrongly conflate a second medical use for mifepristone with contraception being used for abortion. When justifying opposition to the legislation titled Right to Contraception Act,  National Right to Life obliquely referred to the mifepristone studies as a rationale for opposition, “In S.4381, contraceptives’ have been defined so broadly that it may include abortion-causing drugs which could be used weeks or months into a pregnancy.”

Media stories have also inadvertently promulgated this disinformation:

Media stories covering policy and partisan battles about contraception tend to include politically charged terms and statements with medical or scientific disinformation. This reporting can easily propel readers toward misinformation and provide a platform for opponents of established reproductive health medicine.

The charts below demonstrate the public’s vulnerability for confusion about media reporting on political differences and contraceptive policy. There is no unified public consensus on the medical definition of when pregnancy begins. 

  • When most adults hear the term “conception,” they think the subject is the beginning of pregnancy.

  • Adults are split about whether the beginning of pregnancy is situated at implantation or the earlier phase of the process of becoming pregnant, fertilization. It’s possible that when media stories use the term “conception” as a synonym for the start of pregnancy, audiences are thinking very different things.

  • Adults are aligned in the opinion that policymakers should situate laws based on the way medical science defines pregnancy. When media stories use terms like “conception” to define pregnancy in policy, it is plausible that audiences are assuming the policies adhere to the established medical definition of pregnancy.

Source: CAI x Bellwether, December 2024 poll: “Public Opinion on Contraception & IVF”

To analyze mis- and dis-information in media coverage, CAI reviewed coverage of two competing narratives: the Republican-backed Life at Conception Act, and the Democrat-backed Right to Contraception Act.

Life at Conception Act

The term “conception” means something different based on whether it is used as a medical fact, a religious perspective or a personal view. Although the medical definition of “conception” equates to “implantation” or the beginning of pregnancy, many trusted medical authorities also use the term to describe different moments in the process of becoming pregnant.

In the public discourse, this term is overwhelmingly used by those seeking to limit contraceptive access and is no longer a neutral term. 

Nevertheless, the term “conception” is prolific in media stories as a synonym for the medical start of pregnancy. In the past year, the term was used in over 6,000 media articles (including syndication) that addressed conflicts about access to contraception. Only a tiny fraction of these media stories — about 400 — specifically used the term to describe policy such as the “Life at Conception Act.” The remainder used the term in a variety of ways to refer to the beginning of pregnancy.  

The Right to Contraception Act 

Media stories concerning The Right to Contraception Act — which defines its scope as relating only to FDA-approved contraception — exemplifies this trend. As a result of disinformation conflation between abortion and contraception, approximately 70% of media stories about the proposed legislation include a reference to abortion.

This write-up in a mainstream national news outlet allows opponents to make the medically erroneous claim that some contraception is abortion and does not challenge the false information.  

The reference to “pills that induce abortion” is rooted in the false assertion by abortion opponents that some contraceptives end a pregnancy rather than prevent one. Readers are left to self-evaluate what that reference may mean, when in fact there is no current pill — or pill in development —  that both prevents and ends a pregnancy (see section below for a deeper explanation of this debate, “Advancing disinformation in stories about scientific advancement”). 

A conflation of abortion care services and family planning services is also featured in media outlets. This demand is that licensed health care providers who provide abortion services are prevented from providing birth control when they are being reimbursed by the government for birth control services. While unrelated to contraceptive care, this conflation creates the misimpression that such legislation would fund abortion.

In the story above, Planned Parenthood is described as an “abortion-related provider,” inferring that the Right to Contraception Act would impact their abortion services rather than their family planning services.  

A 2022 story by the Associated Press (below) provides accurate information about the bill’s scope. However, the article then allows two groups that have been working against contraceptive access to make factually incorrect comments that further disinformation.

In recent years, proactive federal bill proposals from Republicans that claim to expand access to birth control specifically exclude emergency contraception and shrink the definition of contraception. Yet, some media stories framed these bills as broadly pro-contraceptive efforts. 

The Orally Taken Contraception Act of 2023, introduced by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA)to encourage over-the-counter contraceptive options, defines an “oral contraceptive drug” as one that is “used to prevent fertilization” (as opposed to the medically accurate start of pregnancy, implantation) and makes a point to exclude emergency contraceptives from the scope of the bill.

Nevertheless, some media outlets ignored the anti-contraception measures in the bill and only reported on her pro-contraception statements.

We recommend that the following terms receive additional explanation and scrutiny when used in stories about contraceptive policies and debates:

  • “Conception”

  • “Life” or “when life begins”

  • “Personhood”

  • “Fertilization”

When anti-abortion legislation marks fertilization as the stage where abortion is prohibited, the legislation is by definition also narrowing the definition of contraception. These legislative proposals are regulating both abortion and contraception, yet are routinely only framed in media stories as an anti-abortion measure. 

For example, in February 2024, when a judge’s decision threw the legality of IVF in Alabama in doubt,  massive media coverage that referenced the Alabama decision ensued. In that state, the court — and many anti-abortion groups — argued that the embryo created in a lab should have the same rights as persons that are born.  

This is the same logic that would redefine and restrict the definition of contraception. Yet, only about 7% of these stories mentioned contraception — even though the “personhood” statute, and the judge’s interpretation of the issue that could ban IVF, could also result in banning some contraceptives.

Similarly, when reporting on the Life at Conception Act, which marks fertilization as the point that would limit access to commonly used contraceptives, about 70% of stories did not reference birth control. 

In March 2024, two reproductive health stories emerged within days. First, major drugstore chains announced they would begin stocking medication abortion drugs that would be available via prescription. Second, makers of the first over-the-counter birth control pill, Opill, announced that it was finally available on store shelves. This timeline resulted in stories that conflated the two advancements. 

The Daily Mail used an image of mifepristone medication abortion pills amidst text concerning contraception. The photo caption indicates that the editors were inserting news about pharmacies covering medication abortion, however, the placement and accompanying narrative likely spurs confusion between the birth control pill and the abortion pill.

WSIU published a confusing headline that appears to conflate abortion and birth control:

The following is a partial list of groups leading the narrative in opposition to established contraceptive norms and policies.

  • Heritage Foundation

  • National Right to Life

  • SBA Pro-Life America

  • Students for Life of America


Heritage Foundation

Anti-contraceptive access; spreads medical disinformation. Their positions and statements include:

Urging the Trump administration to establish policy that affirms that certain contraceptives — such as emergency contraception — have the potential to end a pregnancy. As described in Project 2025, this would exclude the hormonal emergency contraception pill Ella from the list of covered preventive services under HRSA.

Urging the Trump administration to promote Natural Family Planning (essentially tracking ovulation and timing intercourse to avoid pregnancy) as having “unsurpassed effectiveness” and eliminating common descriptors of that method, including “rhythm” or “calendar method.” Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 also urges CDC funding for additional NFP research.   

Advocating for a “pro-life vision for IVF” that would treat fertilized eggs as humans and restrict current IVF standards of care:

Emma Waters, a religion, life and bioethics associate at the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, said the group has been having discussions with members of Congress about what a “pro-life vision for IVF” would look like. To Waters, that means not destroying embryos in the process of IVF for any reason. She suggested the U.S. could adopt policies limiting the number of embryos created during treatment or requiring that all embryos get implanted. [Fact: these proposals are radical restrictions on IVF medical care.]


National Right to Life

National Right to Life (NRL) publicly states on its website that it “does not oppose contraception and takes no position on contraception.” However, their position is that certain contraceptives should be treated as abortion:

National Right to Life does not take a stance on anything that prevents fertilization. However, National Right to Life does oppose any device or drug that would destroy a life already created at fertilization.


According to NRL, the opposition to a device or drug that prevents implantation includes emergency contraception and the IUD.


SBA Pro-Life America

This group’s disinformation messaging about contraception — in defiance of current medical science that defines pregnancy and contraception — has profoundly shaped federal and state policy proposals. The organization asserts that “emergency contraception can cause early abortion” and has a history of prioritizing opposition to legislation that will secure access to contraception, such as scoring votes in opposition to the Right to Contraception Act.


Students for Life of America
Students for Life of America (SFLA) has told journalists that the group does not take a position on contraception, and told a mainstream national news outlet that they had not taken a position on the pill over the counter, which was reported in media coverage. However, this group believes that taking the birth control pill is equivalent to having an abortion, a position they often do not proactively share with journalists. Their president, Kristan Hawkins, is opposed to any form of artificial contraception.

This chart, with medical disinformation about contraception, is featured on the SFLA website:

Additional quotes include: 

  • “Making it easy for abusers to cover up their sexual abuse and statutory rape crimes with Online, No Test Chemical Abortion Pills or over-the-counter birth control sales is negligent public policy.”
    —Students for Life of America 2023 press release and webpage on contraception

  • “FYI, birth control can cause abortions and your doctor probably won't tell you that.” —X (Twitter) post, Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America

Journalists need reliable resources to navigate reporting on contraception. The following resources provide excellent background material.

Glossary

CAI’s Glossary of Terms to help reduce misinformation. Also see ACOG’s dictionary here. [for print, include: acog.org/womens-health/dictionary]

Media coverage & misinformation

CAI’s short explainer video on media coverage and contraceptive misinformation, featuring Northwestern University Associate Professor Katie Watson.

Medical facts & misinformation

For clear and concise background on medical facts and contraceptive disinformation, see these two short videos [for print, include see CAI’s explainer videos (thepillotc.org/videos)]: "Fighting disinformation about pregnancy and contraception" and “Challenging the myths about birth control” featuring Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, CEO of Power to Decide, chief medical advisor for Contraceptive Access Initiative and one of the nation’s top medical leaders on access to reproductive health.

More information about contraception and misinformation

  • Information and resources about contraception and misinformation at www.contraceptiveaccess.org.

  • Guttmacher’s State Legislation Tracker, which tracks major, state-by-state developments in sexual and reproductive health and allows you to sort by year, issue (e.g. filter by contraception, specifically) and type of legislation (e.g. contraception defined, insurance coverage, Medicaid and more).

  • ACOG tool kit, designed to help combat abortion-specific misinformation and instead highlight coverage in factual, evidence-based and medically accurate language.

In a media landscape permeated with misinformation and disinformation about reproductive health, it is particularly important to clearly define and consistently use accurate medical terms when discussing pregnancy.

CAI has published a glossary of terms to assist communicators with accuracy. 

Also see ACOG’s dictionary here

Abortifacient ⚠️(medical term; often mis-used)

Any substance used to terminate a pregnancy. This term is used in a medical context, however is often used by those seeking to limit contraception in a political context. It should be avoided in a political context.

“Abortifacient contraception” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

A disinformation term coined by anti-abortion leaders to falsely claim that some contraceptives end an existing pregnancy. This term has no medical meaning and should not be used.

Abortion ✅ (medically accurate term; neutral term)

Abortion means ending a pregnancy. There are two FDA-approved options: an abortion procedure (also called in-clinic abortion) and medication abortion, a two-pill regimen using mifepristone and misoprostol. Medication abortion can also be done using a misoprostol-only regimen. Both FDA-approved abortion methods are safe and effective. 

Conception ⚠️ (not neutral)

Medically, conception occurs at implantation, which is the start of pregnancy. However, the term “conception” is understood differently among various groups — some organizations, such as the Catholic Church, use the term to indicate fertilization. Even among trusted medical sites, conception can be defined differently. 

Groups that oppose abortion and contraception have embraced this term as a synonym for “fertilization,” and its use can be a dog whistle for an anti-contraception agenda.

Avoid this term due to public confusion about its meaning and its partisan signaling; if used, it should be clearly defined and sourced in the copy to reduce confusion.  

Contraception ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

Birth control and contraception are synonymous, though contraception can often be used for purposes other than preventing pregnancy, such as treating menstrual pain, acne or other conditions. These terms refer to devices, medicines or procedures used to prevent pregnancies, with the beginning of pregnancy defined as implantation. Pregnancy cannot be detected until after implantation, when the body begins to produce pregnancy hormones. While contraception prevents pregnancy, it cannot end a pregnancy.

Embryo ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

The stage of development that starts at fertilization (joining of an egg and sperm).

Emergency contraception⚠️(medical term often misused)

There are three different types of emergency contraception:

  • An over-the-counter pill, levonorgestrel, commonly referred to as Plan B, designed to prevent ovulation after unprotected sex

  • A prescription only pill, ulipristal acetate, sold under the brand name Ella, designed to prevent ovulation after unprotected sex

  • An IUD

Emergency contraception (pills and IUDs) cannot terminate a pregnancy that has already begun. 

Fertilization ⚠️(medical term often misused)

When a sperm and an egg fuse, this is called fertilization, which creates an embryo. While this is an essential step towards pregnancy, this is NOT when pregnancy medically begins. For example, an egg fertilized in a petri dish cannot become a pregnancy until that fertilized egg is successfully implanted in the uterus. In the absence of contraceptive use, only about 50% of fertilized embryos will successfully implant.

Fetus ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

The stage of human development beyond eight completed weeks after fertilization. This is the stage after pregnancy has begun. Medically, the beginning of pregnancy is called implantation. 

Hormonal contraception ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

Hormonal contraception methods contain hormones that prevent pregnancy. These hormones prevent the body from releasing an egg each month. Methods include birth control pills, skin patches, vaginal rings, the implant and an intrauterine device (IUD). While the primary mechanism is to prevent fertilization, some hormonal methods also have the potential to prevent implantation.

Implantation ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

The process wherein the fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining, and pregnancy medically begins. When a fertilized egg implants, the body begins to create pregnancy hormones to support the uterine lining. This is the hormone that is detected in a pregnancy test. Note: Without contraceptive use, about half of fertilized eggs do not implant. Prior to the implantation phase, a pregnancy test will not work.

Life or “when life begins” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

This term should not be used to reference when pregnancy begins. Opponents of abortion and contraception frequently use the phrase “when life begins” in a way that can add confusion to medical and legal discussions about pregnancy. This term is often used in “personhood” legislation (see “Personhood” definition, below). Given the lack of public consensus on the meaning of the term “life” or “when life begins,” this terminology can spur confusion and misinformation in media reporting or polling.

Medication abortion ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)
This term refers to the FDA-approved regimen in which a person takes two distinct oral drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, to terminate a pregnancy. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, these drugs can be safely used up to the first 70 days (10 weeks) of pregnancy. Avoid the term “chemical abortion” as it is often used in a political context and used by anti-abortion outlets. 

“Personhood” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

Anti-abortion leaders use the concept of personhood to extend the legal rights of a person prior to birth. Many “personhood” proponents use the 14th Amendment as the constitutional basis for this standard.

There are two types of “personhood” proposals: “fetal personhood,” which applies to a fetus in the womb, and “embryo personhood,” which applies to the pre-pregnancy embryo stage. Personhood statutes threaten access to contraception, IVF and abortion.  

​​“Pre-implantation chemical abortion” ⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

A disinformation term coined by anti-contraception advocates with no medical meaning. Any device or substance that prevents implantation is contraception. In this misdefinition, “chemical abortion” is being used as a substitute for “contraception.” This term should not be used.

Pregnancy ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

The gestational stage that medically begins at implantation, during which a person carries a growing fetus in their uterus. Note: Many health care providers date a pregnancy from the time that a pregnant person has had their last menstrual period, for the purpose of calculating a due date. However, this is not the same as when pregnancy has medically begun.

The pregnancy process ✅(medically accurate term; neutral term)

Refers to the entire process of becoming and being pregnant. This is distinct from the specific gestational stage of when a pregnancy medically begins, detailed above. 

​​“Restorative reproductive medicine”⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral).

This is a political term used in some legislative proposals that refers to non-IVF fertility approaches. It uses Catholic-affiliated fertility programs and is not a substitute for IVF.

“Unborn human being”⚠️ (non-medical term; not neutral)

Do not use. This is not a medical phrase. This phrase is used by groups and policymakers who oppose abortion and contraception to advance “fetal personhood”-style legislation that would ban most forms of contraception and IVF.