By Jay Richards for The Daily Signal
According to Senate rules, a reconciliation package must be limited to budgetary issues. But by 2021, $ 3.5 trillion in tax and spending bills the Democrats are trying to push through through the reconciliation process are trying to drop radical gender activists into the language and assumptions of their ideology in federal law.
The text on ‘Maternal Mortality’ (part 4 of subtitle J of Title III), for example, consists of 15 sections that allocate funds for a series of grants and programs for research and education on women’s health.
And yet, in these sections that discuss mothers who may experience high-risk conditions related to fertility, we find gender-neutral terminology repeated 18 times in more than half of the 15 sections: “pregnant, lactating, and postpartum individuals.”
Although ‘individual’ or ‘person’ is common in legal documents when the referent may be male or female, it does not explain what is happening here. The use of vague, asexual terms is an attempt to bring legal language into line with an ideology that denies the innate binary of man and woman.
Caption J’s use of the generic “individuals” with “pregnant”, “lactating” or “postpartum” even differs from the rest of the account. For example, a separate section on Medicaid refers to “pregnant and postpartum women”. But in such cases, the bill refers to previous legislation that already uses the word ‘women’, such as the Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994.
Often it involves direct quotations from laws already in the books, so that gender editors have to let go of the ‘insulting’ words.
The track is unmistakable: where possible, references to women are sterilized. We have seen since this time Congress’s commitment to the radical gender ideology of the waking left opening days. In early January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Introduced gender-neutral language to Congress.
Support conservative voices!
Sign in to receive the latest political news, insights and comments delivered directly to your inbox.
This approach continues even if the bill deals with topics that are unique to women. In 2021, the choice to refer to a woman as a ‘pregnant, lactating and postpartum’ indicates that someone does not have to be a female to be pregnant, to be lactating or to have postpartum health complications .
That, of course, is exactly the point. For some radical gender activists, being a woman is more a function of nurturing and self-naming than nature and biology. The language reflects that belief.
Unfortunately, this awake language is not only kept in the federal filing cabinets as an artifact of history. It will manage spending hundreds of millions of dollars. The direction can be painfully specific.
For example, Part 4 of Subtitle J allocates funds that can be used to train U.S. medical professions. Section 31046 also provides $ 85 million in competitive grants to eligible, accredited medical schools and programs that seek to study the health effects of climate change on maternal mortality.
Beneficiaries must use these funds for curricula and continuing education. These programs should focus on ‘identifying and addressing health risks and differences related to climate change, counseling and mitigation strategies to address these risks and inequalities’.
But there is an option for those who are less concerned about the role of changing global temperature averages during lactation. Medical schools can also use the funds to ‘study implicit and explicit prejudice, racism and discrimination in the care of pregnant, lactating and postpartum individuals and individuals with a view to becoming pregnant’.
In short, funding for the development of curricula on discrimination and prejudice against ‘pregnant, lactating and postpartum’ obviously sounds good. But let us not be naive about its effects, namely to draw up curricula dedicated to gender ideology by the power of the federal bursary. It would do so under the guise of preventing ‘discrimination’.
Whether this funding can improve the well-being of pregnant women or mothers, the insertion of such gender-neutral language suggests that it goes beyond helping mothers. It is rather about the injection of a ideology that wipes out women of the federal level in society.
Activists tried to advance this cause through fighting Equality Act, which would entrench gender ideology in civil law. But they also take every opportunity to erase references to women – from civil society and the classroom after the executive branch.
Careful legislators and legislators must reject these efforts to gradually promote radical gender ideology – and expose it to the day before it can get further into the language of our laws.
Syndicated with permission from The Daily Signal.