I think some scientists have recognized this, after such terms caused stigma and misplaced concern. "Crack baby" was one of them:

The term “crack baby” is an urban legend masquerading as a medical diagnosis. It is a label that stigmatizes, marginalizes and endangers children and their mothers who are desperately in need of care. Born from the combination of an ongoing crisis in urban health care and draconian zero-tolerance drug policies, the crack-baby myth thrives even though it has no basis in science.

Due to a combination of insufficient data and public fears that followed the crack cocaine epidemic of the mid-1980s, crack was alleged to be harmful to the cognitive and emotional development of children. Sensational news stories warned of the damage that crack would inflict on a generation of children and thus on society in general. A few scientists went beyond the data from incomplete research and contributed to the hype with inaccurate comments.

https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2003-04/03-...

I don't think you've established this though. It may be more likely to be covered for entirely unrelated reasons and have that name as a consequence or coincidence. You're confusing correlation with causation.

> The term “crack baby” is an urban legend masquerading as a medical diagnosis

There are thousands of these and the media doesn't play up let alone care about most of them.