Biden admin says 'birthing people' instead of 'mothers' in maternal health document



The Biden administration opted to replace the word "mothers" with the unusual phrase "birthing people" in its 2022 fiscal year budget proposal, prompting scorn and mockery from critics online.

What are the details?

The strange, sterile phrase appears in a section of the budget proposal outlining public funding efforts to "reduce] maternal mortality rates and end race-based disparities in maternal mortality."

In the section, the administration laments that 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," before offering its solution for "birthing people" (emphasis added):

To help end this high rate of maternal mortality and race-based disparities in outcomes among birthing people — and in addition to the investment in maternal health included in the American Families Plan — the Budget includes more than $200 million to: reduce maternal mortality and morbidity rates nationwide; bolster Maternal Mortality Review Committees; expand the Rural Maternity and Obstetrics Management Strategies program; help cities place early childhood development experts in pediatrician offices with a high percentage of Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program patients; implement implicit bias training for healthcare providers; and create State pregnancy medical home programs.

Interestingly, in another section of the budget proposal regarding paid leave in the American Families Plan, the administration uses the word "mothers."

The Biden administration's proposed budget uses the word "mother" when discussing paid leave but "birthing people"… https://t.co/cOhyL0pS2t

— Declan Garvey (@declanpgarvey) 1623101448.0

What else?

The phrase immediately provoked mockery from conservative commentators on social media.

Wall Street Journal writer and author Abigail Shrier wrote, "100% of birthing people are, and have always been, women. I can't believe I have to educate the Biden Administration in these basics, but here we are."

"By not saying 'women' you are making your feelings about us pretty plain," she added.

100% of birthing people are, and have always been, women. I can't believe I have to educate the Biden Administrat… https://t.co/uYm6lwPp6K

— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) 1623095087.0

"I remember when we used to use the phrase 'the flag, motherhood, and apple pie' to signify things about which Americans were unified. It is now 'an offensive symbol of white supremacy' and 'birthing people.' So I guess we're still good with apple pie," added Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro.

I remember when we used to use the phrase "the flag, motherhood, and apple pie" to signify things about which Ameri… https://t.co/JFGcAjD4In

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) 1623156263.0

The Republican National Committee called use of the phrase "woke, anti-science nonsense."

Joe Biden’s budget uses the term “birthing people” instead of women. This is woke, anti-science nonsense. https://t.co/42atcoe11s

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) 1623086907.0

Last month, in response to progressives such as Democratic Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) using the phrase, conservatives lashed out, noting its dehumanizing affect.

Commentators such as Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute and the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh blasted progressives for reducing humans "to atomized autonomous individuals without a role or connection," calling leftism a "scourge" and a "poison."

Anything else?

The phrase is reminiscent, albeit a bit less clunky, than another peculiar one used in an official document by a federal health agency earlier this year.

In February, the National Institutes of Health refused to utter the word "women" instead referring to them as "pregnant and lactating people."

USA Today deletes 'hurtful language' from op-ed by female HS sprinter angry she's lost to biological males. What apparently was so 'hurtful'? She called them 'males.'



USA Today is feeling the backlash after deleting what it termed "hurtful language" from an op-ed by a female high school sprinter upset that's she's been forced to race against — and has lost to — biological males who identify as female. In short, transgender females.

And what apparently was so "hurtful"?

Whatever else she may have written, Chelsea Mitchell referred to her aforementioned opponents as "male" or "males" — and USA Today later cut those references from her piece.

See, in WokeWorld, that's known as "misgendering" — and it's a no-no.

What are the details?

Townhall said Mitchell's USA Today op-ed first ran over the weekend — but by Tuesday the paper added an editor's note at the top: "This column has been updated to reflect USA TODAY's standards and style guidelines. We regret that hurtful language was used."

Alliance Defending Freedom — which is representing Mitchell and other female Connecticut track athletes in a lawsuit over having to compete against transgender females — stated that USA Today editors "without notice to Chelsea, changed the word 'male' to 'transgender' throughout her piece."

Indeed, the Internet Archive reveals that the May 23 version of Mitchell's USA Today op-ed contains 11 references to "male" and "males" — but they all were either deleted outright or replaced with the word "transgender" in the piece's present form.

Here's one example from Mitchell's original piece: "Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage: a male body."

Catch those last three words? Well, they're gone now.

The new sentence uses the word "transgender" before "runner" — and the words "a male body" have vanished: "Instead, all I can think about is how all my training, everything I've done to maximize my performance, might not be enough, simply because there's a transgender runner on the line with an enormous physical advantage."

What's been the reaction?

As you might expect, folks got angry at USA Today. Christiana Holcomb of ADF certainly gave the paper what for:

What was the "hurtful language" that editors deleted from Chelsea's opinion piece three days after publication? The word "male." 2/3

— Christiana Holcomb (@ChristianaADF) 1622051367.0

Author Abigail Shrier — who knows something about the subject (and getting deleted for her views) — weighed in as well:

Outrageous. @usatoday changed Mitchell's words, post-publication, on the grounds that the word "male" is hurtful.… https://t.co/NGC4pG7cqX

— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) 1622082224.0

This is the second incident I've heard of where leftist propaganda outlets such as USA Today have altered words pos… https://t.co/vAKPlirBed

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) 1622080933.0

Absolutely incredible. You literally can't make an argument in corporate media with conceding to the terms set by t… https://t.co/on7IsOk7MG

— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) 1622080384.0

And U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) was only too happy to crack that quip:

Hey @USATODAY, since you’ve decided to be a propoganda arm for the woke mob and silence a young female athlete, may… https://t.co/u3s8GQgvdw

— Dan Crenshaw (@DanCrenshawTX) 1622133846.0

Anything else?

The below video is one example of what Mitchell and other female athletes have been up against. It's from the 2018 Connecticut girls' 100-meter dash. Mitchell is the third runner from the left. The runners to her left and right — Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood — are transgender females.

The results? Mitchell came in fourth. Miller and Yearwood came in first and second, respectively. In fact, Miller set a meet record that day. But had Miller and Yearwood not been allowed to race against biological females, one might conclude that Mitchell would have finished higher that fourth.

Terry Miller of Bulkeley wins the 100m girls dash i. 11.72 (meet record). Andraya Yearwood of Cromwell 2nd, RHAM’s… https://t.co/ivpGzIFM5v

— GameTimeCT (@GameTimeCT) 1528145089.0