Comments on: Reproductive Rights or Reproductive Justice?

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:44:12 +0000

Was it Loretta Ross? I have also seen her speak, and she told that same story. Loretta Ross is an amazing woman and amazing speaker. I already believed in the framework of reproductive justice before ever hearing her speak. When I was listening to her talk, it was also the first time that I heard the term. Again, I already agreed with the principles, but the fact that I so greatly respect Ross’ opinion is quite honestly a big part of the reason that I take the different phrase seriously.

By: secondhandsally

secondhandsally — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:06:17 +0000

Last year one of the members of sister song (http://www.sistersong.net/) came to speak in my community. She explained that when they were asked to help with the March for Women’s Lives (which up until that point had been called the March for Choice) one of the requests they made before committing was the name change (because of the distinctions between “choice” and “reproductive justice”). I remember when I heard about the name change, I was so disappointed, because I felt like it dilute what the march was about (to me), abortion rights.

The march, her speech, and subsequent research did a lot to open my eyes to the wide range of issues associated with reproductive justice.

In a way, it’s a shame because the word “choice” really could encompass all these issues, but I think in many people’s minds it is just about abortion.

Anyway, if you haven’t already, check out sister song!

By: Cara

Cara — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:09:00 +0000

I also think that Kate’s suggestion, in theory, is an excellent one. The problem is that I’m not sure it would work in practice. Thinking about how little our issues get covered by the media from any perspective other than anti-choice, I doubt that we would be given time because of a name change. Without being given big-time attention, I’m concerned that we might just end up confusing people more than we change their minds.

But then again, maybe I’m underestimating the media and the American public. All I know is that when I give them any sort of credit, I’m usually let down.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:21:21 +0000

I think “justice” has a stronger ring to it, and I think “rights” has gotten bad press in much the same way “liberal” has. The right-wing takeover of language…aargh.

We’ve focused on abortion because the antis have focused on abortion; we’ve been fighting with our backs against the wall. Full support for having and raising children means opening up a wide range of programs – and that seems as if it would be harder to sell to the general American public. Especially in a looking-glass political world where “pro-family” politicians vote against sCHIP.

I prefer the term “reproductive justice” and I agree with Kate that having to explain it could be a good thing. But I’m not hopeful that we’ll get there.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:11:14 +0000

” where do we go with branding? What is most time-effective, politically-effective and harmonizing among women? Do we start calling ourselves reproductive justice activists and spend a hell of a lot of time explaining what that means?”

You know, I’m not so sure that spending a hell of a lot of time explaining would be a bad thing. Like you said, “reproductive rights” seems to have a largely negative connotation to it. Perhaps within the feminist community, perceptions of what it stands for and encompasses has changed, but I’m not convinced that the public at large has caught on. (The general American public tends to be very stuck in it’s ways.) Considering that it is the public whose minds we have to change, I am thinking that it might be a good way to get a message out to the mainstream. The opportunity to explain our views to people who normally wouldn’t listen because they think they already know, could be a great opportunity for the cause. If people start asking questions, they might just start listening to the answers.
Great discussion point to bring up!