" 
 :To sum up my position as laid out on my talk page: We accept ""pro-life"" and ""pro-choice"" as descriptors for people, because they are self-identifications; unlike other editors in this discussion, I do not go about editing descriptions of people to put in buzzwords I like. However, laws are not people, and cannot self-identify, so we have to treat them as we'd treat anything else and describe them in non-biased language. This can take the form of using a neutral descriptor - ""X supports anti-abortion legislation"" - attributing the biased descriptor - ""X supports legislation he describes as pro-life"" - or suppressing the descriptor entirely - ""X supports laws which would define a fertilized egg as a legal person."" However, the latter two aren't really appropriate for a heading, so I think in this particular case we're obliged to use the neutral text. 
 :Dictionary usage moreover is against applying ""pro-life"" to non-people/groups. (Interestingly, the OED accepts ""pro-choice"" as a word one can use to describe a law, but I think it's best to keep the policy equal.) I used OED, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage. 
 :I've been changing these because WP:NPOV is the standard we should be striving for. The self-identification rule allows for balance if not real neutrality, and while one might disagree, it's at least consensus. ""X is pro-life"" sort of implies ""X describes himself as pro-life."" If, on the other hand, you start letting biased text through in non-SI cases, NPOV is gutted. ""This law is pro-life"" - well, it certainly doesn't believe that abortion is wrong itself, because it hasn't a brain. Who has described it as pro-life? And why are we only listening to them instead of people who have described the law as anti-choice? Better to go with neutral text.   "