Sujatha Jesudason,
"The Latest Case of Reproductive Carrots and Sticks: Race, Abortion and Sex Selection"
(page 2 of 4)
Opponents of this legislation, like Georgia State
University law professor Lynn Hogue, argue that this would
have racially skewed applications and impacts (on Black and Asian women
only), and would have unjustifiable externalities, like
unconstitutionally regulating free speech and imposing an undue burden
on those seeking a legally protected medical
procedure.[3] And, equally
important, this legislation is a racist and sexist attack on Black and
Asian women. Like FDLs, the advocates of this legislation are using a
strategy of shaming, blaming and demonizing women of color by suggesting
that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions about their
reproductive lives. They also suggest that the State needs to step in to
protect defenseless Black and Asian fetuses, to use their language,
from mothers who would kill their unborn children because of the race or
sex of these future children.
At the same time, this version of the Stick 2.0 flips the script
for the reproductive rights and justice movements. Reproductive rights
advocates, as a part of the feminist, women's rights movement, have been
explicit about their opposition to gender discrimination, and have in
fact fought for women's issues like child care, health care reform,
preventing violence against women, and pay parity. Similarly,
reproductive justice advocates have been sounding the call for
addressing racialized health disparities for women of color, including
access to contraception, sex education, breast cancer care, and access
to general health care. Both the reproductive rights and justice
movements are rooted in, and to some extent originated in, the civil
rights and human rights movements, and yet here, it is their opponents
who claim to be the defenders of human rights, civil rights, and racial
and gender justice for women of color in the United States.
For the reproductive rights movement, this is an uncomfortable moment
where unaddressed issues like racism in reproductive health care and
sexism in gender preferences are being highlighted. This is only the
most recent iteration of the needs of women of color and
poor women not being met by the reproductive rights movement. In the
19th century, reproductive rights advocates like Margaret Sanger used
eugenic arguments to promote access to birth control. Since then, due to
Sanger's affiliation with Planned Parenthood, the pro-choice movement
has had an unsavory reputation of using eugenics and population control
arguments to promote family planning. Many communities, particularly
communities of color, are deeply suspicious of these motives. Since the
early 70s and the passage of Roe v. Wade, the reproductive rights
movement has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on the right to
abortion and not access to abortion. They have been condemned for not
attending to the multitude of enabling conditions all women need to have
the power and resources to make the best decisions for themselves, their
families and their communities.
For reproductive justice advocates, this is an ironic moment. The
issues that they fought to have recognized, racialized disparities and
the problems with an individual choice framework, are being acknowledged
not by their allies, but by their opponents. As recently as 2005, a
group of advocates (including the National Asian Pacific American
Women's Forum; Manavi, a South Asian women's organization; the Committee
on Women, Population and the Environment; and the Center for Genetics
and Society) were actively trying to raise the question of sex selection
in the reproductive rights movement, particularly as it relates to other
genetic trait selections that are increasingly possible with assisted
reproductive technologies. The group found little to no interest in a
deeper discussion of sex selection, and it was only when anti-choice
legislation started emerging that advocates were willing to begin a
serious discussion of sex selection.
The pro-choice movement has been hesitant to address the issue of sex
selection, partly because they have been under such attack by the
anti-choice movement, but also because it would require the movement to
shift its paradigm from its narrow focus on abortion rights. In a values
clarification workshop in the spring of 2009, a group of more than 25
reproductive health rights and justice leaders spent the day talking
about the tension they felt between the issue of sex selection and
reproductive autonomy. While they recognized the gender inequality
aspect of sex selection, they were still hesitant to take any position
on sex selection that they felt might impinge on abortion rights. The
group was clear that the context in which they were taking a stance
needed to change before they could feel comfortable taking a position.
In an atmosphere where they were desperately fighting to keep abortion
legal, they were hesitate to question any abortion. However, if they
were to operate in a world where there was uncontested access to
abortion and universal health care, they felt they would be more
receptive to discussing the issue.
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
4
Next page
|