Why do progressives want to cancel women? | TheHill – The Hill

I have a confession to make. Im hopelessly behind the curve. Excuse my language, but Im old-fashioned. Im one of those Neanderthals who is so unwoke that I actually believe forgive me again, please that only women can get pregnant and have babies.

But at least Im open to new ideas and trust me, there is no shortage of new ideas about whos capable of childbirth.

Lets start with the progressives in lefty-land at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Altria - Jan. 6 panel flexes its muscle Why do progressives want to cancel women? Couric says she edited Ginsburg interview to 'protect' justice from criticism MORE on abortion, but instead of quoting her accurately, this is what came out of the ACLUs woke sensibilities:

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [persons] life, to [their] well-being and dignity.

Justice Ginsburg wrote about women, not persons. So the ACLU apologized for tampering with her actual words. But the folks over there apparently know something about who can and who cant bear a child that I dont know. Theres a line in a great old love song about how The fundamental things apply, as time goes by. Dont bet on it.

And the ACLU is hardly alone in noticing that people not just women should have the right to an abortion.

In September, House Democrats introduced a bill that states its purpose is To protect a persons ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care providers ability to provide abortion services.

Note the word persons, instead of womans. Then, a little further down into the bill, the Dems explain their reasoning: This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy cisgender women, transgender men, nonbinary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.

Im not saying I disagree with any of that. But I am saying that, after reading those words, I have a headache.

Then theres the Department of Justice (DOJ), which put out a brief against the Texas abortion law a brief that refers to any individuals who become pregnant. Im not cool enough to understand why the DOJ didnt simply say any woman who becomes pregnant.

And the folks at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) want everyone to know that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for pregnant people.

The White Houses 2022 fiscal year budget replaced the word mothers with birthing people in a section about public health funding. This prompted Jessica Anderson, of the conservative Heritage Action, to tweet, Why does [President] Biden want to cancel mothers?

Theres even a Birthing Peoples Bill of Rights. No fooling. I found it on the web.

And on a website called Parents, I read an essay by someone named Amber Leventry who wrote that, Transgender men (men who were assigned female at birth based on their biological sex) and nonbinary folks like me (those who don't identify as either male or female) can and do get pregnant.

Nicole Ault, who writes for the Wall Street Journals editorial page, says that, Language and the law are inseparable. If we erase sex-specific words from our language, we erase, too, what it means to be a man or a woman. Where does it stop? There are people you can look it up who identify as not human. Is person an insensitive term?

I did look it up and heres what I found on the University of Cambridges website: As social beings, a sense of identity plays an important role in our relations and in our own happiness. But identity doesnt have to be narrowly human.

In the article was a picture of a young woman who obviously doesnt identify as a human, with this caption: When people ask me How does it feel to be a cat? Im like, How does it feel to be a human?

Im so confused! I used to believe all the birds and bees stuff. But then, Im a pathetic cisgender man, so what do I know? Actually thats a rhetorical question because I do know this much: The fundamental things no longer apply as time goes by.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

The rest is here:
Why do progressives want to cancel women? | TheHill - The Hill

Related Posts

Comments are closed.