I saw the following interesting comment that involved the LDS church's preferred name. The context of the preceding paragraph to the comment was that it was the close of a letter to the webmaster about the Texas anti-abortion law.
-------------------

I would also like to ask you to please cease using "pro-life" unless it's in quotations by someone else. Better words are "anti-choice" and "pro-birth." "Pro-life" is a convenient term that the right-wingers skillfully slipped into our language. Most of us are unaware of the spin. But you have expressed a strong desire and ability to be thoughtful about your choice of words, so please consider using more neutral alternatives.

V & Z respond: We will take it under advisement. We try to give people and groups their preferred names, but it's tough when those preferred names also incorporate a certain amount of spin. Others that we grapple with, besides "pro-life," include "Grand Old Party" and "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," both of which contain some non-neutral assertions about the nature of the group.

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Sep04.html#item-1
Second letter from the top.

    Okay, so is "mormons are 'wack jobs'" a true pejorative, or is it just true?

Well, kind of. Officially they are "Whack jobs", not wack jobs.

He's wacky, so it's okay-
This time!

All of the SA women in my ward were crazy. I think most were BPD. Mormon missionaries are the perfect recruiting tool.

Interesting. I assume the TSCC related spin they grapple with is that it’s the church of Jesus Christ.

It used to be sort of common to refer to “Mormon Jesus” to distinguish him from the more orthodox Jesus of the traditional Christian churches. But now “Mormon” hurts Mormon Jesus’ feelings, so in spite of how concise “Mormon Jesus” is, it’s offensive (to Mormons).

I’ve suggested that they should be accurate and honest and refer to “Jesus of Latter Day Saints,” but that’s nearly as big a mouthful as the whole church name. And now that I think about it, “saints” may also strain credulity.

It's interesting that it's always these sort of people who are so interested in defining language especially to suit their own purposes. The defendant could have just have easily responded that pro-choice terminology doesn't give the baby a choice, but rather it's on the chopping block... literally.

Are you a baby whisperer? And if you could communicate would you include the probably life of poverty, neglect, and possible abuse it would be coming into let alone the uncertainty of who would be caring for it for its formative years? Or would you just tell it to choose life because of all the glory it will receive having been a good and faithful servant to God after it died having lived a life?

Go through all that shiz to get a great reward because being a murdered fetus doesn't get any of that?

The anti-choice people take zero interest in the children of others once they come out of the womb. I say this as someone who has spent the last quarter century working with impoverished children.

So how do you feel about making the father liable for child support after 8 weeks of pregnancy (since obviously only the mother can have custody until the birth)?

Does an 8 week old fetus qualify the mother for an additional tax deduction? Head of Household tax filing status? Is the fetus a dependent for Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit?

Or is an 8 week old, grain-of-rice size fetus only a person for the purpose of forbidding terminating a pregnancy?

And BoJ, don't you think the father should also be liable for half of the doctor visits and the delivery? How about some financial support for the mother who may not be able to work or able to work at her current job? I also think that child support should be based not on what the father makes but on what the child needs. Don't make enough? Go get a second/third job. I know many single mothers that have had to do that.