Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Feb
23
Anti-Choicers Target Women of Color: How Should Pro-Choicers Respond?
Filed Under abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, class and economics, feminism, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 7 Comments
Earlier this month, Renee wrote a post about an Atlanta billboard targeting black women’s reproductive rights by pointing to the higher rates of abortion among black women, and claiming that abortion clinics are attempting to abort black children out of existence. It’s a great post, touching on many things that will come up here, and you should go read it.
It turns out this issue is about more than a billboard campaign — SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective clues us in to the fact that it’s also turning into an issue of legislation and public policy. Anti-choice legislators in Georgia have introduced HB 1155 – The Sex and Race Selection Bill, and while it sounds warm and fuzzy on the outside, SisterSong assures us that it’s not (pdf):
This bill seeks to ban the solicitation and targeting of women of color by abortion providers throughout the state.
This misleading issue of abortions for sex- and race-selection in Georgia means that we have to use facts and science to stand up for women of color without undermining our support for abortion rights or without enforcing racial stereotypes about women of color. Intent on driving a wedge between reproductive justice and racial justice organizations, and pro-choice advocates, the bill reflects the false assumption that abortion providers throughout the state “solicit” women of color. If implemented, this bill will adversely impact abortion providers by requiring them to prove that they are not targeting women of a certain race or ethnicity. This burden could result in delayed medical services, particularly for women of color. Additionally, this legislation would alter the racketeering laws of the Georgia Code to include abortion providers. This is unacceptable as abortion is legal in the State of Georgia, and the alleged abuses of this medical procedure are unfounded. Such a bill would have a terrible effect on women’s ability to access reproductive health care services throughout the state.
While explicitly targeting women of color and attempting to coerce them into abortions would obviously be a horrific, racist thing, as the press release states, there’s no indication that it’s an issue requiring legislation. Further, the legislation is not a benign preventative measure, but an effort to restrict abortion access further than it is already restricted. The women who would be impacted, as is always the case, are those who are already marginalized. It’s clear that proponents of this bill, and those behind the billboard, do not have black women or children’s best interests in mind. They are rather simply opposed to any and all abortions, and find that non-white targets are easy to hit, for a myriad of reasons.
For all of the above reasons, and because I always trust people on the ground to know what is best for their communities much better than I ever could, I strongly support SisterSong in their campaign to defeat HB 1155. As of yesterday, the bill was approved through sub-committee, but the full Judiciary Committee has suspended consideration and not yet voted. SisterSong is urging Georgia residents to call Chairman Rich Golick of the Non-Civil Judiciary Committee TODAY and urge him to VOTE NO TO HB 1155. His office number is 404.656.5943, and his email address is rich.golick@house.ga.gov. If you are someone who can take action, SisterSong has also prepared a list of talking points for your email or phone call (pdf).
But while we are on the topic, I’d also like to discuss the subject of these types of anti-choice attacks a little more closely.
Feb
15
Book Review: Promises I Can Keep
Filed Under books, class and economics, feminism, media, parenthood, paternalism, reproductive justice, reviews | 1 Comment
I’m the kind of person who hoards books, and finds difficulty getting the the time to read them all within what most people would consider to be an even remotely reasonable timeframe. While that’s something I’m working on getting under control, the consequence is that I’m also the kind of person, who, if she ever actually writes a book review, writes it long after the book has been released.Such is the case with Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, by Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, released in 2005. As the title would suggest, this book is about low-income mothers who have had children outside of marriage, and why this often demonized (or pitied) demographic has grown.
The shortened conclusion is that low-income single mothers are overwhelmingly purposely choosing to carry pregnancies to term and desperately desire to have their children. Under the classist, and for women of color (the interview subjects were split evenly among women who are white, African American, and of Puerto Rican descent), racist, circumstances in which these women live, college and middle-class financial stability are not seen as attainable goals — or at least, not as attainable goals that having children will significantly hinder — and so choosing to wait until after these supposed milestones to have children frequently makes little to no sense.
Low-income single mothers being presented as rational decision makers, women who are making the choices best suited to their circumstances (rather than accident prone leeches on the system), is a rare thing indeed, and that’s why I was drawn to the book. To that end alone, I certainly thought that it was a worthwhile read, and would recommend it to others. But, at the same time, I also found that it had a few significant faults.
Jan
18
Remembering Dr. King
Filed Under activism, bigotry, class and economics, human rights, race and racism | Leave a Comment
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
We still, I should hope it goes without saying on this particular blog, live in a world fueled by racism, white supremacy, and classism. With a lot of the reporting coming out of Haiti this past week alone, that much has been evident. We live in a world where Dr. King’s words are used and abused by those who like to tell us that race does not matter, and that we should all be “colorblind.” And we live still in a world where much of his work and activism — such as his anti-poverty and anti-war work — is ignored because it’s less simple to twist in a way that supports existing power structures, and where only the parts that make those with power and privilege feel good are typically remembered.
But it’s a much better world than it would have been, had it not been for Dr. King and the many, many other activists like him.
In the spirit of remembering that less publicized and less taught work, instead of posting I Have a Dream or I Have Been to the Mountaintop (two obviously phenomenal speeches), I’m posting the beginning of the less recognized speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence, a statement against war and about the interconnectedness of social justice struggles that still remains largely relevant, as well as moving and chilling.
The full text of Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence can be found here.
Also recommended are Jay Smooth’s video Ten OTHER Things Martin Luther King Said, and Renee’s post (already linked above) Dr. King: A Legacy Ignored.
cross-posted from FeministeSep
11
Pretending That Individual Choices Will Help Correct Structural Problems
Filed Under class and economics, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 17 Comments
The other day, I received a press release titled “It’s Riskier to Have a Baby in the U.S. Than in Cuba or the Czech Republic.”
This, actually, I knew. The U.S. has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the industrialized world — and one of the worst maternal mortality rates as well. And the black infant mortality rate is twice that of the white infant mortality rate, with Native American infant mortality rates and some Latino mortality rates being significantly higher than the rates among whites as well.
Given the current climate, when this press release arrived in my inbox, I expected that it was going to be a call from a women’s organization in favor of universal health care, and a comparison against other countries that do in fact have such systems. (The fact that countries we tend to look down on are so regularly used as the point of comparison, and what that suggests, is a whole other can of worms I’m not going to get into today.) Indeed, quick google searches indicate that every country listed in the press release has some sort of public health care system in place. There’d seem to be a pretty strong correlation, especially with so many up-to-date facilities in the United States, that we’re always hearing these countries with universal health care don’t have.
The press release, though, was actually promoting a book about pregnancy. And it provided “tips” — tips which use the acronym SMART — for how pregnant American women can “improve their chances of having a healthy baby”:
S = Seek prenatal care early. Tests for potential chromosome problems, including mental retardation and spina bifida (a condition that causes paralysis) can be conducted only in the first and second trimesters. A first trimester ultrasound is also the most accurate in terms of determining a due date.
M = Mention all risk factors such as a family history of diabetes, high blood pressure, Rh negative blood, premature labor, bleeding problems or genetic conditions to your healthcare professional as soon as possible. Do not omit information such as smoking or using “recreational” drugs because such activities can affect your baby.
A = Ask to have your cervix measured during your ultrasound if you have a history of premature contractions or delivery. A cervical length of 2.5 centimeters or less is a risk factor for preterm labor. If you are at risk for delivering before 37 weeks, ask your healthcare provider about receiving steroids to help your baby’s lungs develop.
R = Research your hospital and prospective physician or midwife carefully. Is the physician or midwife skilled in managing high-risk conditions? Will your care continue if you lose your insurance? Has the newborn nursery had any recent outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections? Is the hospital a level-three facility?
T = Test for potential problems such as gestational diabetes, sickle cell trait and cystic fibrosis, and check for appropriate fetal growth with an ultrasound.
I imagine that this might pretty solid advice (though I don’t actually know one way or the other) — if you’re actually able to follow it.
But considering the email’s opening, and the highly relevant fact that tens of millions of Americans do not have health care access, I was basically blown away by the “advice” and the necessary level of privilege that it involves — even if this kind of thing is an incredibly and increasingly common sight. And its frequency is a big part of the reason why it’s worth discussing.
Jul
14
Women Who Would Have Medicaid-Funded Abortions Instead Often Give Birth
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, class and economics, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 3 Comments
A new study just released by the Guttmacher Institute (pdf; news release here) determined that “approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.”
Whatever the actual number of women who are essentially forced to give birth due to a lack of funding for abortion is, as a percentage it’s a gigantic and terrifying figure.
Of course, such news is likely to be cheered by advocates of the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal dollars from funding abortion, and similar state funding restrictions. The results, after all, were incredibly easy to predict, and while they are indeed shocking they’re not hugely surprising.
What it goes to prove that restrictions on abortion funding aren’t really about ensuring that a woman’s reproductive choices aren’t funded by those who may disagree with them. (After all, there are assholes out there who think that it’s “wrong” for women to give birth under “certain” circumstances, but we still fund prenatal and birth care.) It’s about ensuring that women without their own funds don’t get to actually make a choice at all. It’s about forcing women to give birth because they have no other option.
Since anti-choicers have been unable to institute an outright ban, they go the way of restrictions which, as all abortion-related restrictions do, only impact economically disadvantaged women. They’re the only ones for whom a few hundred dollars in the way can make such a life-altering decision. And since the class system is still structured rather strongly along racial lines, it’s also having a disproportionate impact on women of color. Indeed, a North Carolina study cited in this same Guttmacher paper showed that when public funding for abortions was made available, there was a 10% increase in abortions among black women, compared to a 1% increase among white women.
Currently, only 17 states fund all or most medically necessary abortions. The rest (with the exception of South Dakota, which is in breach of federal law), only cover abortions in the case of rape/incest or life endangerment. So, as the ACLU blog astutely notes, the women mentioned above who would have had Medicaid funded abortions given the option but instead gave birth also includes women with health-threatening conditions (such as cancer or heart disease, to name only two of many) that pregnancy poses an increased risk to.
Last week, I posted about anti-choice efforts to exclude abortion funding from proposed health care reform legislation. The good news is that some of those efforts just failed in committee — hopefully indicating a willingness of all but the most anti-choice Democrats to stand up for women’s rights and health. The bad news is that anti-choice legislators will have plenty of opportunities left to try to reinsert such provisions. And they likely will. After all, as the information above proves, such efforts have served their goals quite well.
Jul
9
Americans Broadly Support Abortion Coverage in Health Reform
Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, class and economics, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 2 Comments
You my have heard — or you may not, as it seems to be getting little mainstream media coverage — that health care reform is in trouble. With Republicans and blue-dog Democrats sensing that some sort of of government coverage is likely to be successfully created this time around, they’re shifting tactics somewhat from attempting to defeat mounting legislative efforts to attempting to gut them. And a big area where they’re focusing that gutting is reproductive health care:
Imagine our dismay to see the proposed amendments submitted to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee this week by Republican Senators Michael Enzi, Orin Hatch and Tom Coburn:
- Coverage for abortion would be banned;
- Health providers and insurers would be protected against “discrimination” for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients including abortions, emergency contraception, aid-in-dying (such as in Oregon, Washington and Montana, where this is legal) or really just about any health service they find objectionable;
- Federally-qualified health centers could not provide abortions and still get government grants;
- Any independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include “professional ethicists…with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.”
The really interesting thing is that while traditional wisdom suggests there is rather broad support for a ban on government subsidization of abortions, new research from the National Women’s Law Center suggests that it’s not actually true — not by a long shot:
- Voters overwhelmingly support the broad outlines of reform and requiring coverage of women’s reproductive health services. Seven-in-ten (70%) favor a proposal that establishes a National Health Insurance Exchange with a public plan option. If the reform were adopted, voters overwhelmingly support requiring health plans to cover women’s reproductive health services (71% favor-21% oppose).
- Absent coverage for women’s reproductive health services, majorities oppose reform. If reform eliminated current insurance coverage of reproductive health services such as birth control or abortion, nearly two-thirds (60%) would oppose the plan and nearly half (47%) would oppose it strongly.
- Supporting coverage of comprehensive reproductive health services would benefit Members of Congress. A plurality (45%) would feel more favorably toward their Representative if they voted to cover reproductive services, while 24% would feel less favorably, and 32% said it would make no difference.
- Voters would feel much less favorably about their Representative if they voted to cover services like Viagra for men, but excluded reproductive services for women. Voters overwhelmingly reported that they would feel less favorably toward their Member of Congress if they voted for reproductive services for men and not for women (71%), while only 9% would feel more favorably toward their Representative.
Jul
2
Organization Pays Addicted Women to Undergo Permanent Sterilization
Filed Under anti-choice extremism, assholes, bigotry, class and economics, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 18 Comments
Cash for birth control may sound unusual, but it’s one woman’s crusade to stop drug addicts and alcoholics from giving birth.
Barbara Harris started “Project Prevention” after watching her four adopted children struggle with drug addiction at birth. Now teens, they’re helping spread her message across the United States.
Parked under a downtown Knoxville overpass Wednesday night sat a 30-foot RV with bold pictures on the outside of it.
The same people who drove it here passed out flyers and talked to anyone who would listen.
“My heart is for the children. These women have a choice, but children don’t,” Harris explains.
The organization pays women who are drug addicts or alcoholics a one time amount of $300 to get permanent birth control.
If they choose to get long-term birth control, $300 is paid out each year they use it.
Men can also get involved and get a one time amount of $300 for having a vasectomy.
Documented proof of a drug addiction or alcohol problem is mandatory to qualify.
What we’re looking at here is the exploitation of a vulnerable population of women. (While the program is open to men, less than 1% of those who have taken the deal have actually been men.) Because I don’t know about you, but I don’t know a whole lot of people who aren’t currently interested in permanent birth control who would suddenly become interested for a rather lousy $300. I can only imagine, in fact, that someone would take such a deal only if they were incredibly desperate for money (and not only because of addiction, but also because of unbearable living expenses, etc.).
And so when Harris dismisses the question of women using their $300 to buy drugs with “it’s their choice,” I really feel nothing but revulsion for her. When we’re talking about handing money to someone on the street, I agree with her — moralizing your decision to not give someone $5 as because they might spend it in ways you don’t like is pretty wrong. But taking something — something serious — from a person for a fairly small amount of money, knowing that they’re likely only doing it because they lack other options, and then doing it anyway? That’s an entirely different ballgame altogether.
Apr
18
City Councilman Promoted Violent Anti-Immigrant Video Game
Filed Under assholes, bigotry, class and economics, immigration, misogyny, pop culture, pregnancy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 14 Comments
I just came across a post at Sociological Images about an outrageously racist flash video game called Border Patrol. They note that in the game, “you try to keep three types of Mexicans from crossing the border: drug dealers, Mexican nationalists, and ‘breeders.’” Video game site Kotaku — which thankfully also calls the video game racist — gives a highly similar description. As you’ll notice in the image above, which is of a heavily pregnant and barefoot caricatured woman crossing the border, she is also on her way to the welfare office.
But you may also notice something else. Looking at the image, there are bullet holes in the sign that says “Welcome to the United States” (with a picture of a flag that seems to indicate an anti-Semitic message that the country is run by Jews — am I missing something?). The woman in the game also looks like her head is in the cross hairs of a gun.
That’s right, in this game we’re not “stopping” Mexican immigrants from crossing the border without documentation by, oh, calling the police. Or by using another horrific and degrading option like catching them in a net to send them back over the border.
No, players are shooting them dead.
Feb
24
Hundreds of Adult Sex Workers Arrested in “Child Prostitution” Stings
Filed Under class and economics, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sex work, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 43 Comments
I love how this headline at CNN reads “Operation Frees Dozens of Child Prostitutes” rather than “Over 500 Prostitutes Arrested Under Guise of Saving Children.”
In the three-day operation, which began Thursday night, the FBI, along with local and state law enforcement agencies, took the 46 girls and one boy — all of them U.S. citizens ages 13 to 17 — into protective custody.
“Operation Cross Country II” involved efforts in 29 cities and resulted in the arrest of 73 pimps and 518 adult prostitutes, the FBI said.
Those arrested could face federal or state charges, depending on their alleged activities.
Nice, eh? I mean, yes, excellent — 47 children were rescued from a rape trade. Surely, that’s a good thing and worth the huge sums of money spent. But is it necessarily worth over 500 female adults being laden with these serious charges, and ultimately I’m sure being subjected to intense public humiliation, for doing nothing more than attempting to make the best living they know how?
And far more importantly and far less fraught than that question: why do we assume that in order to do one, we must do the other?
Feb
12
CVS Limits Condom Access For Some
Filed Under class and economics, discrimination, race and racism, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality | 39 Comments
CVS pharmacy apparently has a policy, in many places, of locking up condoms. This means that if you go to the store and want to buy condoms, you need to find someone who works there, ask them to unlock the case for you, and have them stand there and watch you while you choose the condoms that you would like to purchase.
This is bad public health policy, period. Condoms are the most effective method, other than abstinence (which “fails” more often), at preventing STDs and HIV/AIDS. They are also the most effective non-hormonal method of preventing pregnancy, and one of the most popular contraceptive methods overall. Condoms are, in fact, a public health imperative.
And while we may wish to live in a world where no one saw openly acknowledging sex or discussing contraceptive use as embarrassing — I certainly do — the fact is that we don’t live in that world. In this world, a lot of people are embarrassed to discuss these things — especially women who are often still made to feel that carrying condoms makes them a “slut” and that condom use isn’t supposed to be their responsibility. And the sentence “can you unlock the condom case?” is just too much for a lot of people in this culture (especially those who are particularly shy or have anxiety disorders) to bear.
All of this would be bad on its own, surely. But it gets a whole lot worse when you add into the mix that CVS is a hell of a lot more likely to use this lock up policy in neighborhoods with high populations of people of color.
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
