PP
Reporter Chabeli Carrazana at 19th News:
In a leaked draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argued that pregnant people don’t actually need access to abortion to ensure economic mobility — they already have it.
Except he didn’t, as she immediately goes on to say.
According to the opinion, which was published by Politico Monday night, “unmarried pregnant women” — Alito does not include all pregnant people in his opinion — now have access to pregnancy discrimination protections, “guaranteed” medical leave “in many cases,” and medical costs that are “covered by insurance or government assistance.”
Yes he does. All pregnant people are women. The normal wording is “pregnant women,” not “pregnant people.” It’s insulting to erase the word women from the conversation, and it’s very bad politics. If it were people who got pregnant this wouldn’t be happening.
The substance of the article is useful: it’s about economics and pregnancy, and the fact that Alito pretends the situation in the US is much better than it is. It’s a point worth making, but it’s not worth erasing women from the discussion for the sake of that point.
As Tim Harris said in his comment alerting us to this piece, “pregnant women” is said only in that one Alito quotation. “Pregnant people” is said six times.
Women don’t matter any more.
I wonder if these “inclusive” idiots who are erasing women in their stories have any idea how many people (chosen deliberately) they are going to peak? How many of these news outlets are completely advertantly destroying their own credibility in doing this? Once you’ve been shown the pattern of erasure, you can’t unsee it. This kind of betrayal of trust is going to be hard to make up for.
It’s possible that by “Alito does not include all pregnant people in his opinion”, the author was referring to the ‘unmarried’ rather than ‘women’ of Alito’s text. Context suggests the latter, but there is that window of ambiguity.
Holm’s @ 2
I read the whole article. You have a point, and the usage isn’t abundantly clear, but I do think the quoted reference is about not including “trans or gender variant people”. That phrase comes up in the article, so it is clearly something in mind, whereas married versus unmarried does not come up.