The greeting card industry isn’t going to like this. They’re going to have to change all their cards for Mother’s Day, this year on May 8, to Birthing People’s Day.
According to the American Pregnancy Association, “The doula is a professional trained in childbirth who provides emotional, physical, and educational support to a mother who is expecting, is experiencing labor, or has recently given birth.”
But Fletcher’s Agenda Item referred to “birthing people” instead of mothers, and does so 17 times. It’s one of the latest politically correct fads that distorts our language and politics.
According to the Journal of Mammalogy, there are 6,495 known mammalian species, one of which is homo sapiens. It’s Biology 101 that mammals multiply by the mother of each of those species conceiving, gestating, birthing, and nursing progeny. Mammals do not multiply by binary fission, or asexual reproduction.
Of the more than 7 billion people on earth today, not one looked up lovingly as a baby and whispered, “I love you, birthing parent.” Instead, it was Mom, Mama, Mutter, Okaachan, Mẹ, Eomeoni, and so on.
The Agenda Item also uses “equity” six times. “Equity” is the new buzzword for socialist redistribution. Whereas “equality” meant treating everyone equally before the law, “equity” means forcing everyone to be exactly the same, in every way.
Thus, the document emphasizes “prioritizing equity.” Its aim is, “To help bring greater doula access to birthing people who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color …” That means the program will slight white mothers—excuse me, “birthing people”—probably guaranteeing a court challenge whose legal costs would negate the money spent on the doula program.
So, Fletcher’s Agenda Item says “Indigenous” mothers are being slighted, even though the actual data doesn’t show that, because there aren’t enough numbers. And it says mothers who are “people of color” also are being slighted, even though Asian / Pacific Islander mothers suffer a 2.4 mortality rate, less than the white rate of 3.4.
And even the Latino rate is 4.4, not that much more than the All Infants rate of 3.9.
It’s also well known that poverty is the main reason elevating infant mortality. That means prosperity is the best way to raise families to the level where their infants are more likely to survive. If the supervisors really want to help families with children, they ought to cut taxes and regulations so families and businesses can thrive. And expanding housing construction is an obvious place to start to reduce ludicrously high mortgage and rent costs.
Let’s remember the history of the last 250 years, the time of the Industrial Revolution. In 1800, infant mortality was 500 out of 1,000—that is, 50 percent of babies never made it out of childhood. Compare that to the 3.9 All Infants number from San Diego.
Economic historians debate why the Industrial Revolution began in England, then quickly spread to Northern Europe and North America, then to the rest of Europe, followed by Japan and, most recently, almost everywhere. But a key was in the late 18th century the United Kingdom, as Adam Smith described it in his 1776 book “The Wealth of Nations,” enjoyed the freest economy in the world, with low taxes and regulations.
It was the freedom of capitalism that produced the prosperity that reduced infant mortality everywhere. Whenever socialist “equity” has been imposed—in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, or North Korea—it has been followed inevitably by poverty, starvation, and high infant mortality.
