Political movements have long understood that language shapes culture. From the French Revolution to Marxist movements in Europe and Communist regimes in Asia, ideological leaders have sought to advance their agendas not only through political power but through linguistic change.

By redefining familiar terms, elevating preferred expressions, and marginalizing traditional language, they have attempted to reshape public understanding of reality itself. As George Orwell famously observed, the corruption of language often precedes the corruption of thought.

The latest example of the cultural Marxism that has infested blue states like New York is a bill awaiting Governor Kathy Hochul's (D) signature — S.9316. Supporters describe it as a measure making technical revisions to New York family law. But it does far more than that. It raises a fundamental question: What happens when ideology replaces reality?

The bill is officially described as substituting “parentage” for “paternity and filiation” throughout state law. But among its most significant changes are the replacement of “mother” with “gestating parent” and “father” with “non-gestating parent.” For now, its focus is limited to state statutes, not greeting cards, so the Father’s Day card you purchased remains safe, for now.

If Governor Hochul signs the legislation, a number of gender-specific parental terms would be replaced with what supporters call gender-neutral language. Among the changes:

• “Mother” would become “gestating parent”
• “Father” would become “non-gestating parent” or simply “parent.”
• “Paternity” proceedings would become “parentage” proceedings.
• “Putative father” would become “alleged parent.”

As history repeatedly demonstrates, language matters. The question is not whether words shape culture; the question is who gets to define the words. Is replacing mother and father with “gestating parent” and “non-gestating parent” merely a technical modernization of legal terminology, or is it another step in the Left’s effort to further erase our understanding of God’s design for mankind?

Does truthfulness matter in our laws? Does accuracy matter? It should. The Apostle James wrote: “… [A]bove all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment” (James 5:12).

James’s warning is not primarily about oaths. It is about truthfulness, reliability, and integrity in our speech. Words matter because truth matters. As followers of Christ, we cannot participate in the ideological assault on truth, even when it is wrapped in the language of so-called inclusion, modernization, or progress.

The cultural Marxists of our day understand what revolutionaries throughout history have understood: if you can redefine words, you can reshape thought; if you can reshape thought, you can reshape culture. That is why language is always one of the first battlefields in a cultural revolution. And that is why motherhood and fatherhood must be replaced with sterile, mechanistic terms that strip away both meaning and design.

Ultimately, this is not an attack on words. It is an attack on one of the last great bulwarks standing in the way of their vision for society: the family as God created it. The cultural Marxists of our day are paving the way for their political agenda by weakening one of the primary institutions established by God for human flourishing. When a culture can no longer speak truthfully about mothers and fathers, it is well on its way to forgetting what they are.

As a pro-life Senator, this is a very important issue for Senator Sullivan. He believes that there is no greater gift than parenthood and understands that some families need IVF treatment to have children. However, there are significant pro-life concerns regarding IVF treatment, many of which Senator Sullivan shares. He has worked with pro-life groups on legislation in the NDAA for years. In the current NDAA, he was trying to find a path forward on this issue that takes into account those pro-life concerns. When it was clear that Democrats would block the proposal because of pro-life provisions in the proposal, he withdrew the amendment.