Worried About Women of Color? Thanks, But No Thanks, Anti-Choicers. We’ve Got It Covered.

By Guest Contributor Miriam Pérez, originally published at RH Reality Check

This article is part of a series appearing on RH Reality Check, written by reproductive justice advocates responding to recent efforts by the anti-choice movement to use racial and ethnic myths to limit women’s rights and health. Recent articles on this topic include those by Pamela Merrit, Gloria Feldt, Kelley Robinson, and Maame-Mensima Horne.

273At first glance, it’s nice to see the anti-choice community pretending to care about communities of color. But within a few minutes, the skepticism sets in. What’s really behind these tactics, coming from a group that is majority white, middle-class and Christian? In the end, we know this isn’t actually about women of color and their well-being. It’s a sensationalist attempt to pit women of color against the reproductive rights movement. Classic divide and conquer.

Women of color within the reproductive rights and justice movement have brought light to the policies (often perpetuated by our own government, medical providers and researchers) that serve the mission of population control within our communities. We’ve fought back against the connections and alliances with those in the environmental rights movement who blame the challenges of resource scarcity on women of color and their family size.

We’ve fought back against governmental policies like welfare family caps and limits on access to certain types of contraception over others. We’ve fought with the reproductive rights community to get them to care about these issues and how they affect our communities—and we’ve won.

We’re fighting for access to contraception, to abortion, to options for childbirth and parenting. And now we’ll fight the racist and paternalistic logic behind the eugenics arguments being made by anti-choicers.

In the Latina community, we’ve dealt with all sorts of attempts at controlling our families. In addition to welfare family caps and abusive immigration policies, we’ve also got a long history of sterilization abuse. The height of this was in the 1970s, when Dr. Helen Rodriguez-Trias and others discovered that doctors and residents at a Los Angeles hospital had sterilized hundreds of Mexican women, without their knowledge or full consent. We’re talking women being asked to sign consent forms in languages they did not speak, being lied to and told that the procedure was reversible, or being offered sterilization in the midst of labor.

The result of this was a major organizing push by CESA—Committee to End Sterilization Abuse–to enact federal informed consent laws for sterilization. They won, and in 1976 these laws were enacted, mandating processes for informed consent, waiting periods for sterilization consent, and forms that had to be in the patient’s language, among other things.

But the fight did not end there. We’ve also dealt with a campaign to bring the population growth in Puerto Rico to zero—which actually worked in some cities, according to the documentary La Operación. Sterilization promotion was the primary tool here as well.

These days, the abuses are less obvious and more insidious. When I worked with pregnant Latina immigrants in Pennsylvania, I saw their options limited by the technicalities of their emergency Medicaid coverage. They could get sterilized, for free, right after their deliveries. But if they wanted the pill, the shot, or some other short term birth control? They were out of luck.

But what we know is that reproductive justice isn’t just about freedom from coercive sterilization. It’s also about access to a full range of reproductive technologies, whether that’s birth control, sterilization, abortion or even childbirth. Rodriguez-Trias understood this, which is why she formed CARASA a decade after CESA. CARASA, the Committee for Abortion Rights and Against Sterilization Abuse, understood that women needed options across the spectrum of reproductive technologies in order to truly achieve reproductive freedom. It’s clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide vital services to low-income Latinas, many of whom are uninsured.

Latinas and other women of color don’t need to be protected by paternalistic ideologues motivated by a political agenda that disregards the needs of women of color and their families. So thanks for your concern, anti-choicers, but I think the women of color advocates working within the reproductive justice movement have got it covered. We’re working in those clinics you attack, we’re helping to shape policies and provide services in our communities, services that allow us to decide what our needs are.

We know whom we can trust to make decisions about family creation: women themselves. We don’t need limits on what services we can access.  And we don’t need your ideological bullying.

The next time one of your crisis pregnancy centers, one of your dramatic billboards, or one of your bogus pieces of “sex and race selection” legislation actually works to support women through whatever choice they make for their families—we’ll talk.

Photo of Helen Rodriguez-Trias from mississippi appendectomy

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Abortions for Some, Little American Flags for All — Transracial / Transcultural Adoption on 17 Mar 2010 at 9:03 am

    [...] who’s never had to worry about any of this, extremely thought provoking. Miriam Perez at Racialicious offers more insight to the battles women of color fight for reproductive [...]

Comments

  1. EH wrote:

    Wow some of that I had no idea about. Glad someone wrote about this. When I hear about those billboards I just rolled my eyes.

  2. Molly M. wrote:

    “But what we know is that reproductive justice isn’t just about freedom from coercive sterilization. It’s also about access to a full range of reproductive technologies, whether that’s birth control, sterilization, abortion or even childbirth.”

    I agree that access is a central tenet in this debate, but I’m also quite dubious of New Reproductive Technologies. Technology isn’t neutral and the fact that NRTs have been normalized is a serious concern. The ways in which they’re implemented cannot be separated from gendered assumptions about women, their bodies, and social roles, no? In many ways, NRTs privilege biology as the only natural and acceptable way to parent. Also, NRTs (such as fetal monitoring, sex selection, ultrasound, amniocentesis, etc.) are social mechanisms that perpetuate eugenic practices in their function to determine who is “fit” and “unfit.” And, subsequently, “choice” becomes a responsibility or a requirement. I highly doubt that bioethicists consider the effects that NRTs exert on the woman or fetus. So, I agree that access to these resources is a valid concern, but I also think it’s important to question the role of NRTs altogether–are they more invasive than they are emancipatory?

  3. Marie wrote:

    go Miriam!

    I completely agree :)

  4. Shelby wrote:

    I’m glad the author acknowledges that the population control fears are REAL and VALID. I’ve read a couple pro-choice articles that completely dismiss the ongoing history of reproductive rights abuses and poo-poo those of us who use words like “eugenics” and “genocide.” It’s one reason why I prefer the “reproductive justice” framework rather than “pro-choice.” I’m more concerned with combatting structural violence and ensuring bodily autonomy than I am specifically concerned about just abortion. I think abortion is absolutely a right that should be protected, but, as a woman of color, it’s just not my #1 concern. I think a good essay to read is Andrea Smith’s “Beyond Pro-Choice Versus Pro-Life: Women of Color and Reproductive Justice.” It really lays out why the Pro-choice versus Pro-life framework just does not address the reproductive rights of marginalized people.

  5. BSK wrote:

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. I got into an argument on a conservative blog I read about this issue. I said I would accept these billboards as legitimate attempts at supporting the black community if they were coupled with other efforts to support the black community, especially those new members who came about as a result of preventing access to abortion. Deaf ears. Eventually someone chimed in that this is an abortion group, solely interested in abortion. When I pointed out that this was precisely the problem and that this group had no concern for “life” and only concern for furthering their cause, they didn’t really see a problem with that. Sigh…

  6. PatrickInBeijing wrote:

    Great post!!

    Some of the reproductive technologies that are not available to poor people include help with fertility issues. I doubt the anti-choice folks are very concerned about this.

    There are also questions about pre and post natal care, the availability and access to which is again limited by class (which in the US directly and especially affects poor Women of Color).

    I like the term Reproductive Justice.

    @Shelby, thanks! Do you have a link for Andrea’s essay?

  7. Shelby wrote:

    @PatrickinBeijing– I got access to the article thru my university’s library, but here’s the url for the absract? http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/nwsa_journal/v017/17.1smith.html

  8. Tracey wrote:

    I love the insight. It’s amazing how this bias spreads beyond the obvious and familiar means.

  9. Mooncat wrote:

    thank you, this is a good article.

    i think that there is a very creepy need to control the sexuality of WoC and shame those who are comfortable with themselves. i used to canvass for a pro-choice organization. we had one black canvasser and she received more hate than the rest of the white canvassers almost combined. i usually got “no thank you” and “you need to rethink your life”, “God will forgive you if you rethink this”, etc. and our black canvasser teammate got “whore”, “slut” and other horrible names aimed at her. =(

  10. PPR_Scribe wrote:

    “Reproductive justice” is definitely my term of choice. Too few in the mainstream “Choice” movements take on issues that are not related to abortion access, leaving other important issues related to WOC on the backburner or absent altogether.

    Rising rates of infertility and subfertility (made even more difficult because of the image of the superfertile Black women and Latinas) and disproportionate parental rights terminations are two such issues that receive very little attention in the traditional spectrum of “choice.” “Male shortages” brought about, in large part, by massive incarceration efforts in communities of color are often associated with less sexual “power” of women in these communities, resulting in “choices” by women that put their reproduction off their desired paths and their lives at risk. But rarely is the prison industry part of the “choice” story.

    BSK, just a note: some of the recent billboard efforts are, in fact, by majority Black groups who are very involved in the Black community. I think part of their point is that the pro-Choice folks do not do a much better job at caring about Black children and Black women than the “pro-life” folks.