One
of the issues I'm most passionate about is reproductive rights, health, and
justice. Since I'll be missing class next week due to my activism around this
issue, I thought I'd share some of my thoughts about it.
For
several decades, the United
States
SisterSong:
A Women of Color Reproductive Justice Coalition defines reproductive justice as
“the right to have children, not have children, and to parent the children we
have in safe and healthy environments.” Reproductive justice connects
reproductive freedom to other systems of oppression which contain and control
the autonomy of women of color in particular. Intersectionality frames
reproductive justice, as it is an understanding of the interconnectedness of
these systems of oppression which guides reproductive
justice. Intersectionality helps activists to uncover the ways that
this system of oppression functions and to continue working towards devising a
social movement which addresses all facets of this system.
Whereas
the pro-choice movement emphasizes the legality of abortion as a “right” to
abortion, reproductive justice emphasizes access to abortion
over this legal right. Thousands of women do not have financial or geographical
access to abortion, therefore making abortion a choice which is not available
to them. The Hyde Amendment, tacked to appropriations bills beginning in 1976,
barred the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. This amendment essentially
ended the right to abortion for low-income women, as the cost of abortion is
prohibitive to their ability to access these services. Due to the passage of
TRAP laws, thousands of women are forced to endure mandatory waiting periods
and to travel hundreds of miles to access basic reproductive services. This
hoop-jumping is only an option for women who have the finances to afford hotel
rooms, lost wages for days off, childcare, and transportation out of town. This
reflects the inequality of opportunities which are available for women of color
and low-income women.
At
the same time, abortion access is not the entire scope of issues of
reproductive freedom. Women of color have historically been denied the autonomy
to birth and raise children in the ways that they want to. In an attempt to
“purify” the gene pool of the human race, the eugenics movement sought to end
the reproduction of women of color through methods such as sterilization. In
fact, Margaret Sanger, a founder of Planned Parenthood and a birth control
activist, was a known supporter of eugenics. Sterilization has been practiced
as recently as 2010 in California
Reproductive
justice cannot exist without economic justice, as low-income women will not
truly have the right to reproduce if they cannot afford to raise their
children. This economic justice includes promoting such initiatives as
raising the minimum wage, securing reliable public transportation for all,
providing paid parental leave, and providing free or affordable daycare for the
children of employees. Racialized mass incarceration plays neatly
into this economic system of oppression as well. American de-industrialization
led communities of people of color to primarily work in the service sector,
which offered fewer benefits and less unionization. This fostered poverty in
these communities, which often creates situations which enable crime to occur.
The War on Drugs has also been proven to disproportionally target people of
color for drug crimes which white people commit at the same rate. Mass
incarceration is an extension of reproductive justice’s systematic control of
the bodies of people of color. As an extension of the War on Drugs, laws such
as the Interagency Policy on Cocaine Abuse in Pregnancy have
subjected pregnant women to non-consensual drug testing. This drug testing
results in reporting to police, which then leads to the arrests of pregnant women
who test positively for drugs. Many of these women are forced to give birth
while in shackles; many of them have had their children taken away and put into
state custody. Unsurprisingly, the great majority of women who are affected by
these laws are women of color and low-income women. These laws have the power
to decide who is “worthy” of mothering.
In order for the reproductive justice movement to be truly successful, the goals of reproductive rights, reproductive health, and reproductive justice must be attained. The lack of access to abortion and contraception, and the denial of the right to childbirth both function to deny women of color equal opportunities in the field of reproductive freedom. Through growing the reproductive justice movement, forming alliances, and making important policy changes, this women of color-led movement is working its way toward reproductive freedom.
In order for the reproductive justice movement to be truly successful, the goals of reproductive rights, reproductive health, and reproductive justice must be attained. The lack of access to abortion and contraception, and the denial of the right to childbirth both function to deny women of color equal opportunities in the field of reproductive freedom. Through growing the reproductive justice movement, forming alliances, and making important policy changes, this women of color-led movement is working its way toward reproductive freedom.
I'm having trouble thinking of anything substantive to comment as it appears you've hit everything. Aha, just thought of something!!
ReplyDeleteAs you know, when running campaigns, it is of the upmost importance that messaging be clear and precise. However, as you also know, intersectional frameworks are not really easy to boil down to a tagline. Moreover, it is often an unfortunate fact that once a critique starts getting at too hegemonic of forces (i.e. demonstrating that reproductive justice is essentially dependent on economic justice) you begin losing support. Thus, on issues like Amendment One, do you think it is necessary to campaign with an intersectional framework at the risk of being pushed to the fringe and losing this battle? Or is it justifiable to omit intersectional critiques for the sake of garnering widespread opposition to this proposed amendment (I'm assuming that many folks could get behind opposing Amendment One but not at all be behind thing such as raising minimum wage)?
Okay, I was waiting for something like this to come up on the topic of abortion because I think this is one point where I diverge from the feminist agenda. I expect that this is going to be controversial, so let me first explain how I've come to solidify my beliefs and then I encourage you to provide counterarguments, as I am continually formulating my ideas on this subject.
ReplyDeleteIn high school, I attended Tennessee Governor's School for the Humanities, essentially a 8-week program through which high school students take college courses for credit. I took an introductory psychology course and an introductory philosophy course. My philosophy professor, who reminded me of a toad (he just had that face), covered abortion one day in class. This is the conclusion I came to (again, from a college-level philosophy course, much like this one): we as human beings do not have the right to take away the life of another - even in the case of rape, incest, or immediate danger to the mother. We don't allow it in birthed humans (and thus outlaw it), so who is to say that the life of the human being in the womb is somehow less important or less worth living? Surely, not a measly human being like me!
I am a Catholic. Not a intense, follow-every-rule kind of Catholic (I call myself a cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing the things I want to abide by and believe in), but I do believe in a higher power of some sort. My God is exponentially smarter than me and works to maintain balance in the universe, not just in my life. He knows who should die and who should live. What if Mother Teresa's mother aborted her? Or Nelson Mandela? The list goes on. If this is the plan for me (to die or to be harmed in childbirth) by a fetus, so be it. I steadfastly maintain that this would be my opinion regardless of the circumstances. If I didn't want to keep the baby, I would birth it and put it up for adoption.
I do, however, recognize a flaw in my opinion: I and my sister both are on contraceptive birth-control. Until I become sexually active, I don't see a problem with taking birth control - even as a Catholic - as it was initially intended to regulate my hormones. If you add sex in the mix, then you run the risk of essentially an abortion: making it impossible for a fetus to grow to full term and be born. I realize this is what birth control is supposed to do - control birth more so than regulate hormones - and I think I agree with taking it while it does contradict my views on abortion. By default, I am "choosing" to stop the possible life of the eggs in my womb, but it still isn't as immediate of a choice as abortion in the typical way we think of it. If I was trying to be consistent and it really came down to it, I would advocate for the cessation of birth control, allowing nature (or God if you so believe) to regulate life and subserving my own preferences for the good of any future life. There are always condoms…
Sorry, one more thing: I realized after clicking "Publish" that I totally disregarded your main point in the blog post: that of viewing reproductive rights through a lens of intersectionality of race, gender, and socioeconomic status to name a few. I think this is absolutely necessary for women's rights. There is a dire need for economic justice in order to assure women of their rights as mothers, including access to healthcare and a legitimate minimum wage. There are also interventions that can be put in place or tweaked: such as free mothering classes in at-risk areas or educational opportunities (rather than or in conjunction with punitive actions) within the Department of Human Services: Administration for Children and Families.
ReplyDeleteSchaeffer,
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily see the decision as being between a reproductive justice frame and between clear messaging. I think it's important for reproductive justice to inform the way that activists come to the work - how we see our issues, what communities we aim to work with, which partnerships we should seek out. The reproductive justice frame has led the organizers I know to recruit leaders of color and queer leaders, make partnerships with other progressive organizations, and organize around issues which may not be directly related (such as marriage equality and voter's rights). Rev. Dr. William Barber II, one of the main organizers of the Moral Monday protests in North Carolina and a board member of the NAACP, spoke at the Planned Parenthood National Conference gala last week about how voter's rights is a central issue to reproductive justice organizing. This is because legislators have the most power to enact legislation around reproductive rights, and much of our progressive voter base is being destroyed by the voting rights decision which was handed down by SCOTUS last year.
On the other hand, when it comes to messaging, it's vital that we make the type of argument that makes the most sense for the communities we're targeting. For instance, I think that powerful messaging against Amendment One would be one of privacy, since we're dealing with a primarily Republican base of voters who value privacy and are against government intrusion. I think it's possible to have this clear messaging for those outside the progressive community and still be capable of intersectional critique internally.
Brooke,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your post and your calm explanation of your views. I went to the TN Governor's School for the Humanities also, class of 2010! What a small world.
I find that a lot of the pro-choice/pro-life debate centers around the idea of personhood - whether or not a fetus is a living person - because both parties agree that taking a life is wrong. I am going to remove myself from that debate, as I don't believe the debate around personhood is relevant to the discussion about abortion. Whether or not a fetus is a living thing, that fetus is occupying the body of another living thing who deserves to make her own decisions about her pregnancy. When the someone tells a pregnant woman that she should not be able to have an abortion, this is considering the personhood of the child above the personhood of the woman. Denying her this decision denies her bodily autonomy, which is central to the recognition of a human being's personhood.
Regardless of the morality of abortion, this is a medical procedure which needs to be safe, legal, and accessible for everyone. When women are denied access to abortion, they go to extreme measures to end their unwanted pregnancies. These measures can result in painful injury and often even death. Making abortion illegal does not stop women from getting abortions - it only forces them to put their lives at risk. Is this not immoral? We all agree that abortion should be less common, but making it illegal does not contribute to the decline in abortion rates. Rather, comprehensive sex education and contraceptives should be available so that women are able to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
On the point of birth control, your views honestly aren't conflicting! Birth control either (1) prevents ovulation or (2) thickens cervical mucus which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg or prevents the egg from ever attaching to the uterine wall and completing its fertilization process. If you believe in the personhood of a fertilized egg, there is a difference between discarding a fertilized egg and preventing the fertilization in the first place.
By the way, I appreciate your willingness to have a civil conversation with me about this! It's really refreshing to be able to simply have this conversation and not get personally attacked.
Leah and Brooke,
ReplyDeleteI greatly appreciate both of your opinions on this matter. Since Brooke brought up the idea of philosophical discourse which focuses upon the topic of reproductive rights, I think it is interesting to focus particularly on the aspect of reproductive rights and ethics as it was elucidated in the care ethical movement which we have been recently discussing.
Care ethicists such as Nel Noddings formulate reproductive arguments which are conceptually based upon the concept of responsibility. Nel Noddings, and other care ethicists upon which she based her work, think that the uniquely feminine aspect of care ethics is the emphasis that it places on this responsibility domain in ethical debate.
It is very interesting, as such, that Leah would formulate the importance of the discussion of responsibility in terms of its varying level of reach from an intersectionalist lens that focuses on "right" instead of responsibility. It is notable that Brooke also approached the topic from a "right" standpoint, although through more predominantly by using the terminology of worth, which was also mentioned (somewhat pejoratively) in Leah's post. Funnily enough, early care ethicists believed that this terminology when discussion ethical issues was presupposing a masculine conception of ethics and was, as a result, neglectful of potential intersectionality within ethical conversation.
Although I tend more towards agreement with Leah's post, mostly because I am not Catholic and so share little of the moral principals advocated therein, I think that it is interesting to note that both females formulated their arguments for either viewpoint from what was once considered a majorly masculine formulation of ethics.
I understand that language of ethics that conforms to the more masculine conception is more easily, or perhaps just merely more expediently, adaptable into advocacy language and law, and respect it for this capability in its own right. I wonder, however, whether the disagreement would be as prominent and seemingly irreconcilable if both author and commentator could reformulate their argument in terms of feminine care ethics, namely: responsibility.
as always, thanks for your insights,
E
Leah,
ReplyDeleteI think I agree that abortion should not be made illegal. My little sister once used the phrase, "legalizing morality" and I believe that applies here. I am sympathetic to your point that outlawing abortion does not lead to a decline in abortion rates; I wonder, though, if the legalization (thus making abortion readily available) of doing so sways mothers that otherwise would have carried their baby to term to have an abortion? Just curious…
I am glad to hear a different take on the abortion argument and to hear that most people agree that it is wrong. I realize that it is the mother's body to which things are being done, but I still find it hard to assert that one person's life is somehow more important or worth more than another's. Dittos to comprehensive sex education and contraception as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place, though!! Similar to the let's-teach-the-men-not-to-rape sentiment articulated by Zerlina Maxwell.
Elyse,
I think I can relatively easily reformulate my opinion to come from a (perhaps more feminine) care perspective. I believe that having a human being in one's womb does obligate the mother to some sense of care toward the fetus - otherwise, there wouldn't be so much anguish and debate with oneself about having an abortion. It would be a much easier decision if we as a species felt no connection to our young. In this way, I would argue against abortion, saying that the mother has the responsibility to care for her child, which means allowing it at the very least the opportunity to live - responsibility to see the pregnancy through to the full term (in my opinion, regardless of the causes or hypothesized effects of doing so).
While this is starting to seem like a sexist argument (I see where that comes in now), it is just by nature that men do not have to grapple with this question thus making it seem like a one-sided issue. Hypothetically, if the situation were reversed, I believe that the questions about autonomy and free-will would be just as pertinent for men.
Brooke
This article I've posted is a great example of using care ethics toward a pro-choice position:
ReplyDelete"My friend Patricia offers a single reason for her passionate defense of reproductive care that includes abortion: Every baby should have its toes kissed. If life is precious and helping our children to flourish is one of the most precious obligations we take on in life, then being able to stop an ill-conceived gestation is a sacred gift. Whether or not we are religious, deciding whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a process steeped in spiritual values: responsibility, stewardship, love, honesty, compassion, freedom, balance, discernment. But how often do we hear words like these coming from pro-choice advocates?...
"A moral continuum ranges from actions that are forbidden, to those that are allowed, to those that are obligatory. When it comes to abortion, we talk only about one-half of this continuum—Is it forbidden or is it allowed?—when, in actuality, a women faced with an ill-conceived pregnancy often experiences herself at the other end of the continuum, wrestling with a set of competing duties or obligations. What is my responsibility to my other children? To society? To my partner?To myself? (To cite a personal example, my husband and I chose an abortion under circumstances where it would have felt like a violation of our core values to do otherwise.) The current conversation doesn’t reflect the real quandaries women face, one in which moral imperatives can and do compete with other moral imperatives. Nor does it reflect the wide range of spiritual values and God concepts that enter into the decision-making process.
"No-choice advocates say: Abortion is immoral. God hates abortion.
"We can say: For me, bringing a child into the world under bad circumstances is immoral. It violates my moral and spiritual values. / "Whose God decides?"
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/04/03/abortion-blessing-grace-gift-changing-conversation-reproductive-rights-moral-values/