Okay, this article shows the LA Times is taking political correctness a step too far. When an opera billed itself as "pro-life" meaning it in the broader sense and not at all referencing the abortion issue, the Times relabeled it as being "anti-abortion" based on a strict policy of avoiding the term "pro-life" as being offensive to those who support abortion:

"Music critic Mark Swed said the copy editor was adhering to a strict Times policy banning the phrase "pro-life" as offensive to people who support abortion, and didn't seem to realize that the epic Strauss opera "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" had nothing to do with that politically charged issue."

1) Nice. Sounds like the article is edited by someone who only read the cliff notes of the opera.
2) A quick search of the Times indicates that it does use the term "pro-choice" which is technically offensive to those who are against abortion. It has also used the term pro-life in news stories. Is it perhaps the music opinion section that has the censorship policy?
3) It bothers me that a newspaper takes it upon itself to censor either the terms "pro-life" or "pro-choice" and revise them into "anti-abortion" and ??? (what - anti-life??? or do they not revise the term at all? I'd like to know from the Times exactly what their policy on this one is). Either way, given that the terms themselves to not include overtly offensive language that requires little symbols to post in polite society, the paper is supposed to be objective and not take sides in this particular debate outside of the opinion page. There's too much subtle proselytizing in the news as it is, with adjectives, labels, and adverbs that connote support or derision for one side or another in major issues. What happened to objectivity, guys?