This article was originally published on February 28 on TheBody, which delivers vital information, news, support, and personal perspectives on HIV and related issues. We have republished it with their permission.
This week, Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom and Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights submitted their long-anticipated amendment to the Ohio constitution to protect abortion access in the state after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision effectively overturned Roe v. Wade’s 49 years of precedence.
This amendment is sure to bring out a lot of misinformation and nastiness in politics. That forthcoming rancor has already been made much worse by media outlets that have misrepresented the amendment’s language to give credibility to its likely detractors―political operators who try to use transphobia and “wokeism” to move voters away from supporting it.
The amendment, The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety basically outlines that neither the state of Ohio, nor any of its entities can penalize, prohibit or interfere with any person’s reproductive decisions, including “contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.”
The statute would prohibit abortions after a pregnancy is considered viable unless there is a threat of adverse events (including death) to the patient’s life, but leaves that decision up to their provider to determine on a case-by-case basis. Though clearly explained, media misreporting emerged within a day of the amendment’s language release.
On February 22, Today In Ohio, the official daily podcast of Cleveland.com/The Cleveland Plain Dealer, opened with a discussion of the amendment, that instead of helping listeners understand the debate, actually misrepresented the bill’s language in a way that felt primed to generate additional controversy. On the episode, after paraphrasing the content of the amendment, Cleveland.com executive editor Chris Quinn took the opportunity to muddle how it refers to pregnancy.
“I got an interesting note from one of the listeners/readers of our platform questioning why they used the words pregnant person instead of woman,” said Quinn. “They’re questioning it from the political correctness of it. They’re questioning it as a pragmatic move. That’s going to offend people. There are people who believe that pregnancy is about a woman and that it’s been silly to move away from that. And so do you lose votes by going with what surely the opponents will call wokeism and you know nonsense about…we’re not even giving women the words pregnancy. That’s an interesting point. You very well could lose some votes because of that.”
There are a few problems with this assessment. The first being that the amendment language does NOT say “pregnant people” anywhere in the document. Anytime it refers to a person who is pregnant, the phrase “pregnant patient” is used. Quinn, and the “listener” seem to be fearful that anti-abortion activists (and Ohio’s GOP) will make this bill about political correctness and transgender people to steer more sympathetic voters away. And yes, there’s been a lot of national debate with transphobes complaining about using the phrase “pregnant people,” but I’ve not come across any anger against talking about “pregnant patients” as a framework at all. This distinction, while seemingly minor, actually does make a difference in how this issue is potentially perceived.
But whether the word is person or patient, last time I checked, women are in fact people, and if they are seeking an abortion, contraception or other medical reproductive services, women are also patients. So it doesn’t make much sense to think that this amendment can be construed as somehow leaving women out in the name of political correctness. Instead of educating listeners―or pointing out that anyone who would choose to vote against this amendment on the basis of some notion of pro- trans woke-ism, is probably not very pro-choice in the first place―the podcast clumsily conflates the issues.
Also, if the amendment was written and ultimately passed using the words “pregnant woman”, any transgender person seeking an abortion could potentially be legally prohibited from doing so in the state. Sure, transgender men don’t make up anywhere near approaching a high percentage of pregnancies annually―but why wouldn’t the bill be written to include anyone who could get pregnant?
Instead of providing clarity or an analysis that speaks to the dignity of any person who might need an abortion in Ohio, Quinn co-signs this thinking. Which despite his setup that this issue was brought to him by “a listener,” is an opinion he shares. And that should concern all women, pro-choice activists, and LGBTQ people in Northeast Ohio.
While Quinn, as the paper’s editorial lead, is the worst culprit, the harm doesn’t stop with him. Lisa Garvin, a podcast co-host and member of the editorial board of Cleveland.com, chimed in with what was arguably an even more ill-informed take.
“Yeah and it’s really become kind of a…like an arguing point, and I’m in the camp that only biological women can have children, which is a scientific fact,” Garvin opined.
I hate to break it to Garvin but trangender men can and do in fact get pregnant, and should be considered a protected group in this proposed constitutional amendment. That she leaves the door open to suggest otherwise (while ignoring that trans men do not describe themselves as “biological women”), aligns her with part of a growing backlash against people seeking a range of accommodations―in public restrooms, medical spaces, school sports, etc.―all of which the Ohio GOP has made attempts to pass hostile legislation against over the past few years.
On the February 23 podcast, Quinn opened Today in Ohio’s podcast by sharing that he had heard from listeners who were bothered by his presentation of the issue. Rather than address his mischaracterization of the amendment’s text, he basically lectured listeners who objected to his opinions about what type of language is “practical,” and for not being civil or patient with people who are bothered by those who feel marginalized by classically gendered terms.
It’s not enough to suggest that there is a learning curve for people without addressing one’s role, as the biggest and oldest newspaper in the region. News organizations are supposed to be ahead of their readers on these issues, and should lead instead of follow.
For decades we’ve pretty much stopped referring to certain jobs in gendered terms. Waiters and waitresses are usually referred to as servers now. We have mostly retired the term “actress” and call all thespians “actors.” Flight attendant has replaced “steward/stewardess.” There was no big outpouring of rage at these shifts, so why are some bothered by simply using “patient” or “person” when talking about pregnancy? It’s simply because right-wing culture wars have put us in this place and made it an issue. And media organizations have to stop transphobes and misogynists from pretending that there’s no precedent for shifting terms in language.
It’s time for the editors and journalists at Cleveland.com to participate in cultural competency training and learn the difference between gender, sexual orientation, and sex assigned at birth before assigning stories or jumping on the podcast without referencing the basic facts of a story they’ve reported or including anyone from the affected community―especially on one of the most consequential issues of our time. That “reader/listener” who asked the original question isn’t the only audience that Cleveland.com serves.
This amendment is going to create a nasty fight if it makes it to the November ballot. Everyone, no matter what side of the issue they support, knows that’s the case and knows what’s at stake. But if the editors of major papers misrepresent the text of legislation, and make up straw man debates that we know the Right will use, any kind of public debate is already compromised. 🔥
Know an LGBTQ+ Ohio story we should cover? TELL US!
Submit a story!
