Go Figure: Trans Movement Tells USA Today Abortion Bills Hurt Them Too

Hearty congratulations to Texas “trans men and nonbinary people” for really upping their victimhood game. And kudos to USA Today, the paper of record for desperately bored business travelers, for bringing the rest of us “news” of this feat.

“Getting an abortion while trans was always hard,” according to USA Today’sMabinty Quarshie. “In Texas, a new law puts outsized burdens on them.” Well.

At issue is the Texas “heartbeat” law, which bans Abortion is legal if a baby’s heartbeat can be detected within six weeks. This law includes all of the typical feminists and sexual revolutionaries as well as Moloch worshippers in a tizzy. 

“President Joe Biden called the ruling, ‘an unprecedented assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade,’” Quarshie writes. And that’s the problem. “News coverage of the law tended to focus on the ways it impacted cisgender women — women whose gender matches the sex they are assigned at birth — without any mention of trans men or nonbinary people.”

Far be it from me to defend the media’s hysterical reporting on the bill — or anything else for that matter. But even if you’re the type that pretends “men” can be pregnant, it would be strange to shift the focus from the 99.9% of people actually impacted by it. That’s bad advocacy, and the media are nothing if not abortion advocates.

But they’re also four-square behind the trans movement — USA TodayIn order to promote its cause, it is pleased to throw out any journalistic standards. So Quarshie dutifully tells readers that “Even before S.B. 8 was enacted, trans men and nonbinary people faced systemic barriers to reproductive health care.” Not to mention the mental health care they really need.

“Nonbinary and transgender people can face being misgendered or deadnamed, uncomfortable conversations about reproductive organs, harsh or even cruel treatment in medical offices,” Quarshie laments.

There are many laments (more than 1 800 words). 

Maybe this is “intersectionality” at work. Or maybe it’s a tiny grievance group latching on to a hot issue because it knows the hacks at USA Today and elsewhere will indulge it. Either way, real “cisgender women” are losing the victim sweepstakes.