The Power of ‘Baby’

By Hector Chapa

Sunday, May 10, 2026

 

Mother’s Day celebrates the unique bond that a mother has with her child, a relationship unlike any other in the human experience. This profound attachment begins long before the moment of birth, taking root and flourishing throughout the course of pregnancy as a woman carries, nurtures, and prepares for the arrival of her son or daughter.

 

But a concerning political shift at odds with this natural reality has medical associations prioritizing clinical, sterile terms such as “fetus” or, more jarringly, “products of conception,” to dehumanize the life in the womb in furtherance of abortion politics.

 

Groups ranging from the American Society of Radiologists to the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine endorse replacing terms used in the first trimester, such as “heartbeat,” with “cardiac motion,” and advise that the words “‘live’ and ‘living’ are best avoided.” Such guidelines not only ignore the distinct DNA, heartbeat, and developing person in the womb that mothers sense through every kick and ultrasound, but they also can leave a mother feeling as if her deep emotional connection is a mere sentimentality rather than the biological reality it is.

 

This is more than semantics. It’s a philosophical departure from the traditional dual-patient understanding of obstetrics, of mother and child, redirected to a model that intentionally distances both doctor and patient from the developing life in utero. And this linguistic shift risks normalizing a more detached, clinical view of pregnancy, where the emotional and human dimensions of carrying a child are downplayed even further.

 

As a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist, I value the accuracy of medical terminology. Terms such as “embryo” and “fetus” have a necessary place in the realm of clinical education and biological research, providing a standardized framework for scientific study. However, when these cold, clinical labels are imported directly to the bedside, they act as a barrier rather than a bridge. Applying sterile terminology to direct patient communication diminishes maternal reality, treating a woman’s child as a specimen to be monitored rather than a person to be loved.

 

About a year ago, I was called to our ultrasound suite by our ultrasonographer to assess the heart rhythm of a child in utero. After a detailed evaluation, we concluded the survey was normal. The sonographer reflexively told the patient, “It’s okay, your fetus has a normal heart tracing.” The patient looked at us with a surprised expression and responded, “You mean my baby is okay, right?” That subtle exchange in terms, that one-word substitution of our “fetus” for her “baby,” stopped me in my tracks.

 

True bedside manner requires a language that recognizes the humanity of the patient, both mother and child, ensuring that the miracle of new life isn’t lost in the language of researchers.

 

But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and similar professional bodies are shifting their language to strip children of their humanity and make it easier to view pregnancy as a medical condition to be managed or terminated rather than a human being to be welcomed.

 

Such “neutral” language serves the interests of activists and policymakers, at the expense of the maternal-child bond that is foundational to a healthy society. Earlier eras of obstetric practice, reflected in common speech and patient-facing materials, more readily used relational and humanizing terms like “baby” or “unborn child,” particularly in conversations with expectant mothers.

 

But today, ACOG explicitly discourages the use of terms such as “womb,” “baby,” or “unborn child” on the grounds that they are “medically inaccurate” or apply “emotional value.” While such language may be defensible within clinician medical educational materials or peer-reviewed publications, this shift — applied universally at the patient’s bedside — represents more than just “medical precision”; it reflects a broader cultural and ideological reframing of pregnancy.

 

This is the acme of the politicization of medicine, where the language of care is no longer just about “biologic accuracy,” but about aligning with sociopolitical positions. The side effects erode one of the most distinctive and profound aspects of women’s health care: the recognition that pregnancy is not merely a condition to be managed, but a transcendent biological relationship in which new human life is nurtured and brought into the world.

 

The words an obstetrical physician chooses are never neutral. They frame the reality of the patient’s experience. When medical professionals use life-affirming language, referring to the life within as a “baby” or an “unborn child,” they validate the mother’s instinct to protect and bond with her offspring.

 

Reflecting the growing unease and pushback within medicine against unilateral political and ideological currents, organizations such as the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) explicitly maintain and endorse such life-affirming language, preserving the nature of obstetrics that recognizes the humanity of the preborn child alongside the care of the mother. And as the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing noted, “Person-centered language in maternity care involves moving away from terms that may diminish or dismiss women’s experiences, discomfort, or concerns.”

 

True health care should support the holistic well-being of both patients involved in a pregnancy. By returning to life-affirming language, obstetrical providers can honor the sanctity of the womb and strengthen the vital, irreplaceable bond between a mother and her child.

 

Ultimately, the goal of obstetrics goes beyond safe clinical outcomes to support women through one of the most significant transitions of their lives. The language of the obstetric care professional should reflect the reality of the nursery. To deny a mother the right to hear that she is carrying a “baby” is to deny the very essence of the maternal vocation.