Maybe we should count our blessings. At least Michelle Obama concedes human reproductive systems count for something. That's more than the transgender cult and their legion of advocates in the Democrat Party and the Left will admit.
And I write that only partly in jest.
Mrs. Obama spent eight years largely avoiding moments like this as First Lady, and most of the next eight years as well. She had every opportunity to enter the political ring as a Democrat presidential nominee; she would have been crowned almost by acclamation in 2020 and 2024, had she chosen to push either Joe Biden or Kamala Harris off the ticket at any time during the previous cycle. It was well known that Mrs. Obama disliked electoral politics, not to mention accountability for positions or policies, which explained her reticence.
This provides yet another reason the former First Lady avoided a political career -- a complete lack of connection to mainstream American culture. How else to explain this strange declaration, especially from a mother of two? VIa Twitchy:
Michelle Obama says the ability to create life is the least significant function of a woman's reproductive system.
— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 29, 2025
She claims men can't truly understand what women endure because female biology has barely been studied.
"The least of what it does is produce life." pic.twitter.com/eCpQ5Fn3aP
Matt Taibbi scratched his head in wonderment about this declaration. Mrs. Obama has two grown daughters; are they really the least important use of her reproductive system?
I know people are going to get on Michelle Obama for other reasons, but what struck me is what a weird thing it is for a parent to say, that “the least” significant thing your reproductive system does is create life. I’d be worried how my kids took that. https://t.co/6Uh6brNjtY
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) June 30, 2025
I think that may give Mrs. Obama too much credit for coherence. This entire argument is stupidly tendentious, and flat-out wrong. There may be some areas where women don't get enough focus on medical therapies and treatments, but that usually falls into the category of health concerns that apply to both sexes. Furthermore, that is much less of an issue over the last few decades than it had been. When it comes to reproductive health, the medical establishment has pretty thoroughly explored both sexes, and while there are always more aspects of it to learn, female reproductive systems are hardly the mystery that Mrs. Obama claims.
In fact, I suspect that Mrs. Obama's true objection is to how much we do know now about female reproduction, and in particular, the scientific basis for defining life as starting at conception. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers produced photographic and video evidence that made it clear that human embryos were not just a "clump of cells" but actually human beings. That made clear to everyone that any discussion of a "woman's right to choose" had to consider the right of the boys and girls in the womb to live. The Left is still clinging to their "clump of cells" justification for aborting babies, in some cases demanding abortion access to the moment of birth, with the claim that the child does not achieve human status with innate rights unless it passes through the birth canal or a Caesarian section.
The accelerated research and technology over the last few decades makes that point clear. It's not just that we are able to save children prematurely born earlier and earlier in the gestational cycle, but that we now see clear images of babies in the first weeks of gestation. We know when they feel pain, when their hearts start beating, and when they truly begin to live as distinct and separate humans from their mothers -- and that's at conception.
Mrs. Obama objects to this medical progress, not because it somehow overlooks the female reproductive system but because it makes very clear how it works and what it means. Instead of addressing that, Mrs. Obama instead pretends that the only research being done treats women as a birthing "machine," and that reproduction is the least important aspect of a reproductive system. That tendentious argument, along with the "men don't know" absurdity she offers to disqualify critics, intends to buttress the abortion-loving Left's argument that human life is disposable and that what really matters is pleasure and lack of consequences for choices made by women (and men) with their reproductive systems.
And again, the Left not only wants to argue that life is disposable, but so are our reproductive systems themselves. If we decide to "feel" as though we are a different sex, we should be able to cut out our reproductive systems to match our feelings at the moment, rather than consider that perhaps other pathologies might be in play. As bad as that is for adults, it's unconscionable for children -- and yet the Left wants to push sex-change therapies and indoctrination all the way down to the pre-school level, with Drag Queen Story Hours proselytizing children who have no clue or context for that experience and curricula designed to confuse rather than enlighten.
Mrs. Obama may want to reconsider her new career as a podcaster. She exposes herself as strangely disconnected from mainstream thought, not to mention a strange and not-so-latent discomfort with her family life. But thankfully, we do finally have confirmation about why the former First Lady never chose the Hillary Clinton strategy.
