The push to erase sex in our nation continues to escalate, and what happened in Congress late last week takes the cake.
We’ve shared with you about the threats of the so-called Equality Act in Congress, the uphill battle to preserve girls’ sports in state legislatures, as well as the widespread push to make cross-sex hormones and gender-altering surgeries available to children.
But over the weekend, attempts to erase sex and demean the essence and uniqueness of womanhood was taken to a whole new level.
On the eve of Mother’s Day, the Democrat-led House of Representatives held a hearing entitled “Birthing While Black: Examining America’s Black Maternal Health Crisis.” During the May 6 hearing, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform set out to “examine the maternal mortality and morbidity crisis experienced by Black birthing people.”
If you’re like me, this was the first time I had heard the term “birthing people.” I assumed, and soon received confirmation, that the Committee used this odd term in place of “mothers.”
This terminology begs the question: Why would anyone reduce the matchless privilege and responsibility of mothers to “birthing people”?
The term implies that 1) any person – man or woman – can be a mother, and 2) mothers’ sole function is to birth. I don’t believe I need to explain that this is offensive and degrading to mothers, grandmothers, and all women. Mothering is the most special, powerful blessing of womanhood that is reserved by God for women. And the most courageous, selfless mothers among us – adoptive mothers – know better than anyone that birthing is not required.
Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) testified at the hearing and later tweeted with the phrase: “Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don’t believe our pain.”
NARAL (the abortion advocacy group) retweeted her, apparently in an effort to explain this new terminology while ratcheting up the rhetoric even more: “When we talk about birthing people, we’re being inclusive. It’s that simple. We use gender-neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every*body.”
This seems really basic, but I think NARAL needs to be reminded that only women can birth babies! In other words, there is no reason to “use gender-neutral language” when talking about mothers. And why can you not simply call mothers mothers?
Unfortunately, this bizarre redefinition of the most fundamental title in human history is evidence that liberal elites are intent on erasing sex – and especially womanhood – to achieve their pro-abortion, anti-family policy goals and to permanently alter society.
While the threats to erase sex are many, the biggest is found in the Equality Act, which has already been passed by the House and could be voted on by the Senate at any time.
The Equality Act also includes a ban on “pregnancy discrimination” and a new requirement for pregnancy “treatment”, which of course is code for abortion. As our friends at the Charlotte Lozier Institute point out, “The ‘abortion as health care’ campaign advanced by the Equality Act effectively defines the unborn child out of existence. It treats the child as merely a “physical condition” of the mother that health professionals are called on to address through corrective treatment.”
We are all too familiar with the negative effects of devaluing fatherhood over the last several decades. I shudder to think about the negative impact on families, children and all of society if we now debase mothers to “birthing people” and obliterate womanhood as some on the Left are clearly intending to do.
Take Action: Click here to send a message to your U.S. Senators. Tell them that mothers aren’t “birthing people” – and urge them to reject the Equality Act and all other measures that seek to erase sex.
Family Policy Alliance