A new extension available on Google Chrome has the goal of turning the web into a pro-choice “safe space.”

The extension, called “Choice Language” and released last week by the National Institute for Reproductive Health (NIRH), scans webpages and replaces every instance of “pro-life” with the words “anti-choice.”

Casting their cause as the “accurate framework” for the abortion discussion, the extension’s description proclaims:

Pro-choice advocates are not anti-life, anti-choice advocates seek to eliminate a woman’s right to choose. A conversation built on pro-choice versus anti-choice language is a more accurate one, and is one that does not vilify those who identify as anti-choice any further than their own actions would suggest.

As reported by the liberal news site ThinkProgress, “the extension was created by an activist who wishes to remain anonymous” and partnered with NIRH to release it to the public.

Speaking to ThinkProgress, the NIRH’s president, Andrea Miller, said “We thought it was a really interesting and creative idea. We agreed with her that the language in this discussion really matters.”

In another place, the extension’s description reads:

Those who stand against a woman’s right to decide what is best for her own body prop themselves up as righteous saviors using a problematic framework of rhetoric and religion. The term “pro-life” is inaccurate in this argument — although it is a powerful tool in the fight against women’s health rights — as it serves to demonize individuals who are pro-choice by suggesting that in their support of a woman’s right to choose what is best for her own life, they also advocate for death in some way.

While decrying the term “pro-life” as “inaccurate,” the extension’s creators clearly believe in the power of language to help disguise the fact that advocacy for abortion is decidedly pro-death. Furthermore, “anti-choice” does not aptly define the pro-life stance.

Over at Life Site News, Dustin Siggins draws out the hypocricy in this line of thinking: “we can only support the mother’s choice, not the father’s! Or the unborn child’s! Or the choice of the brothers and sisters of the unborn child!”

The actor James Woods also expressed his dissent in a Twitter post:

For those who can't win an argument based on reasoning, changing the language will have to suffice… #abortion https://t.co/WgemvxwBgw

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) February 20, 2016

There are also those wondering about the legality of such software. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air voices that the software “will edit not only the raw text, but the tone and inflection of anyone writing about the subject at hand. Can anyone explain how this is allowable?” He continues, calling attention to the fact that “once the altered text shows up in one liberal blogger’s window it can be copied and pasted into other sites (within the limits of fair use laws) as if that was how the material was originally published.”