Newsweek: Biden Admin Replaces ‘Mothers’ With ‘Birthing People’ in Maternal Health Guidance

I would say this definitely qualifies as another example of what James Carville lamented as the culturally tone deaf faculty lounge jargon that defines woke progressivism.


“The White House’s 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding, prompting ridicule Monday from President Joe Biden‘s conservative critics.

The Biden administration’s budget includes a public health section which addresses efforts to “reduce maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality.” The budget specifically addresses racial disparities between Black, American Indian/Alaska Native and other women of color. But it is the replacement of the word mother with birthing people that drew the ire of conservative think tank leaders and right-wing media members Monday following the release of Biden’s budget.

A Heritage Foundation lobbyist on Capitol Hill responded incredulously tweeting, “Why does Biden want to cancel mothers?”

“The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, with an unacceptably high mortality rate for Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, and other women of color. To help end this high rate of maternal mortality and race-based disparities in outcomes among birthing people,” reads the 2022 White House fiscal year budget proposal. …”

Progressive activist groups already defending the terminology.

“The pro-choice nonprofit NARAL defended use of the term, tweeting, “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.” …”

It was exactly a month ago that Rep. Cori Bush floated the term “black birthing people.” It was the subject of a Liberal Larry skit. Republicans are gleeful that progressives are rolling with this because it is another losing culture war issue that unites Republicans, repulses Independents and divides Democrats. There is nothing that Republicans would love better than to steer the 2022 midterms onto the terrain of divisive cultural issues like whether “trans women” are capable of giving birth.

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


    • Man just means “hands” or “hand” anyway. It’s a reductive term that turns men into working units already. What’s wrong with just saying Woman? It’s a slight way to separate out a worker that can lift 50lb sacks of flour from a worker who can do stitching quickly. Why add superlatives and adjectives to these Anglo Saxon basics? It’s going to turn us all into Robots and Thralls.

  1. It’s just a way to undermine the past and destabilize the future, by attacking the most basic things.

  2. And then after winning 2022 midterms, the republicans will pivot to “democrats are the real transphobes.”

  3. It’s curious because I’m pretty sure that the English Man come the Roman “hand”. The Germans even got it that way and there is a PIE root. Woman is essentially a way to indicate a pair of hands that has a vagina and womb attached but it’s a short way of saying that. Why not call men Therefore Cocksman. Insemination – Americans or Testiman. What a fucking joke it all is. They are turning women into niggers shifting Anglo-Saxon words to this managerialese bullshit.

  4. Speaking to older leftists I know about this stuff, they agree it’s stupid but think it’s harmless and comes from good intentions. It’s impossible to convince them of any malicious motive behind it.

  5. I can honestly see Blumpf using this term after being counciled by Jared and his zog administration

  6. Seems like a de-humanizing term to me. You would think women would get angry about this. Our ruling class are evil lunatics.

Comments are closed.