Joe Biden ran on an absurdly radical platform for a “moderate,” but it looks like he saved a lot of his truly crazy ideas for the White House. Just when Americans think his policies can’t get any more deranged, he unleashes a budget that cancels moms! In a bizarre attempt to transgender the English language, Biden has decided to bleep out the word “mother” and replace it with “birthing people” – a demeaning term that reduces women to some sort of utilitarian breeding center in another effort to eradicate gender. And yet, when Biden’s wokest leaders have been asked to explain the change, they can’t or won’t.

In Wednesday’s Senate committee meeting, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra struggled to field questions on why the word “mom” is being treated like the world’s newest profanity. When Oklahoma Senator James Lankford ® pressed him, “Can you help me get a good definition of ‘birthing people?’” the secretary fumbled awkwardly for an answer. “I’ll check on the language there,” Becerra replied, “but I think if we’re talking about those who give birth, I think we’re talking about–” he paused. “I don’t know how else to explain it to – ” he trailed off clumsily. “I was a little taken aback when I read it,” Lankford said. What’s the point of the shift, he asked? Will there be regulations to go along with it? Becerra told him again that he’d have to “go back and take a look.”

Lankford pushed harder. “Language is important…” he argued. “Would you at least admit calling a mom a ‘birthing person’ could be offensive to some moms? They don’t want to get a ‘Happy Birthing Person’ card in May. Can you at least admit that that term itself could be offensive?” Becerra didn’t answer. Instead, he repeated, “Senator I’ll go back and take a look at the terminology that was used, and get back to you. But again, we’re trying to be precise…” Well, Lankford said, “‘Mom’ is a pretty good word that’s worked for a while. And I think it’s pretty precise.”

Deputy OMB Director Shalanda Young also came under fire when she testified about the budget on the House side. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) was just as incredulous about the phrase “birthing people,” and Young replied, “There are certain people who do not have gender identities that apply to female and male, so we think our language needs to be more inclusive on how we deal with complex issues.” So, Smith followed up, “Is the administration’s official policy to replace the term ‘woman’ with ‘birthing people?’” “I think our official policy,” Young said, “is to make sure that when people get service from their government that they feel included, and we’re trying to use inclusive language.”

But how about making sure the 99.99 percent of mothers who are women feel included? Smith could only shake his head in astonishment. “Joe Biden and Washington Democrats are trying to turn America into crazy town,” he fumed in an interview later. “One of the proudest moments that any of us have is whenever we get the title of mom or dad… And the fact that you have the woke liberal Left trying to take motherhood from moms by trying to redefine the word… it’s absolutely absurd.” But then, he said, “we’ve learned that when Democrats are in charge, these are the kind of priorities they have.” Don’t forget, he reminded people, “on the opening prayer of Congress this year, they didn’t even use the word ‘amen.’ They said ‘amen and a woman.’ You just can’t make this stuff up.”

In the fantasy land known as the Democratic Party, social justice now requires that you deny biology, science, morality, and common sense. But equally disturbing, Republicans agree, is Becerra’s refusal to admit that something else exists: a law against partial-birth abortion. Six times he refused to acknowledge that the practice was illegal in the Senate hearing. Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) was not deterred. He kept on, doggedly determined to get some sort of recognition on the established law. “Is partial birth abortion legal or illegal in the United States?” he pressed. “A woman has a right in this country to exercise reproductive choice,” the former California attorney general replied. “Is it illegal?” Daines asked again. Becerra ignored him, talking again about Roe v. Wade. On the final attempt, Becerra said, “Senator, I’ll direct you then to the decisions that the courts have issued with regard to that particular statute if you like, and that’s why I continue to repeat to you is that what is the law is the right of a woman under Roe v. Wade to receive reproductive health care services.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time Becerra has eschewed the 2003 law (which, incidentally, he voted against as a member of the House). His dishonesty on the subject has gotten to be such a pattern that PolitiFact took the unusual step of nailing him with a “false” rating. “The 2003 law is not obscure,” the fact-checkers write. “Becerra, then representing a district in California, voted against the measure, as did 132 other Democrats out of the 205 then serving in the chamber.” If anyone should remember the law, it’s a man who served in the House when it passed.

Meanwhile, Biden may not know what to call moms – but he’s certainly doing his part to make sure there are less of them. His push for taxpayer-funded abortion was another subject that put Becerra on the hot seat. When Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) asked if he was part of omitting the Hyde amendment from the HHS portion of the budget, the secretary smugly answered, “Remember, senator, that President Biden before he became president, he said that he was against maintaining the Hyde amendment. The budget is a reflection of what the president has said in the past…”

But it’s not a reflection of most Americans’ values, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was careful to point out on the floor. He’s keeping his radical campaign promise, McConnell said, “[and] shrug[ing] off a common-sense precedent upheld by administrations of both parties for more than 40 years…” That decision “aligns him with an increasingly radical consensus among elected Democrats. But it puts him way out of step with the clear majority of Americans who oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Mr. President,” McConnell said, “the administration’s budget request continues to make headlines for all the wrong reasons. But its plan to sell out on longstanding protections for the most vulnerable Americans might just be the lowest of the low.”

Originally published here.

Eyes on the Price

If Americans are worried about inflation, they have reason to be! According to reports, prices have shot up faster and higher than they have in years. Everything from beans to burgers costs more, the Wall Street Journal says. Companies like Shake Shack, Campbell’s, Smucker’s, Cracker Barrel – even Spam! – they’re all being forced to raise prices because of the broken supply chains, worker shortages, freight spikes, and just general uncertainty about how long this downturn will last. This is a “Made-in-Washington Inflation Spike,” experts warn. And Joe Biden’s policies are only going to make it worse.

The last time this happened, and prices climbed five percent in a single month, was right before the economy came crashing down. Gas, cars, oil, appliances, housing – every industry is showing signs of repeating the recession that hung over Barack Obama’s head for years. “What Congress has given in relief payments,” the Journal warns, “inflation is taking away.” And what is the White House’s response? Let’s spend more!

“The president [is] looking at another multi-trillion dollar stimulus package,” House Ways and Means ranking member Kevin Brady (R-Texas) pointed out on “Washington Watch,” “and Democrats in Congress want a fourth and fifth stimulus check. I think people would be stunned to find out that a family of four – an average family of four where both parents lost their jobs – Congress has already approved more than $109,000 in government checks for that family. Even a family with just one parent out of work, more than $67,000 dollars already.” And even with that, he shook his head, “our April-May jobs reports were stunningly bad. In fact, at this point, five months into the new president’s term, he has already one-half million jobs less added than President Trump did during his last five months – some of [which was] during the height of the global pandemic.”

The reality is scary. This president’s policies, Brady warns, “are really slowing, really hurting this jobless recovery.” And now that Washington is paying four out of every 10 Americans more to stay home than to work, businesses everywhere are being affected. Ninety percent of these employers say their local economy is being hurt because they can’t connect workers with good jobs. Of course, compounding matters, this is all happening before President Biden’s crippling tax increases take full effect. If companies thought they were affected now, just wait. “It’s going to hammer them,” Brady says.

“Washington right now reminds me less of a pandemic fighter [and more like a bunch of] college kids on an extended spring break,” the Texan pointed out. “It’s party now – hangover tomorrow.” And the worry is, we’re already starting to see some of that hangover in the inflation crisis. “We’re going to see more. It’s going to cost more to borrow, whether it’s for college or for a home or for a car. And ultimately, the president’s own budget that he released a little sneakily over the Memorial Day weekend, they predicted that after this sugar-high is done, America’s growth for the next decade will be as slow as it was during the Obama-Biden administration.”

And let’s not forget how awful that was, Brady reminded people. “It was terribly disappointing. Paychecks weren’t going up. Jobs were moving overseas. [There weren’t] a lot of opportunities for young people coming out of school. So he is actually putting us on a path backward to some pretty bad economic days.”

But then, as we’ve always said, elections have consequences. And right now, the American people are paying for them – in more ways than one.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.