Sujatha Jesudason,
"The Latest Case of Reproductive Carrots and Sticks: Race, Abortion and Sex Selection"
(page 3 of 4)
One of the egregious ironies of anti-choice advocates using this
tactic is that while they claim to be opposed to race and gender
discrimination, they are relying on racist and sexist stereotypes to
carry their message. In this case, Black women are either too ignorant
to know when they are being duped into having abortions they don't want,
or are so lacking in humanity that they would knowingly participate in
the genocide of their own people. With Asian women, this legislation
appeals to the stereotype of the browbeaten, submissive Asian woman who
is powerless in the face of family coercion or who is willing to
cold-heartedly commit female infanticide. According to the proponents of
this legislation, both Black and Asian women need somebody else, in this
case either white legislators or the white anti-choice movement, to save
them, both from themselves and from their communities. Black and Asian
women become the convenient scapegoat for taking a stance on gender and
race equality without doing anything to truly address racism or sexism.
The relationship between FDLs and race, abortion, and sex selection
makes a strong case for using a reproductive justice approach to women's
reproductive lives. Reproductive justice starts with an intersectional
perspective and with acknowledgment of the inequalities and
externalities created by racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, xenophobia,
ablebody-ism, and classism. There is no "universal" or "neutral" woman
for whom one is fighting for, but rather women embedded in social,
political, and economic structures of inequality and discrimination. The
work of reproductive justice is to create the carrots, create the
enabling conditions for each woman to make the best decision for
herself, her family and her community. The focus is not on what any one
woman might do and punishing her if she does the wrong thing, as in the
case of FDLs and abortion bans, but on creating the best context within
which any woman might make her own choice.
Susan Cohen notes that while the abortion rate for Black women is
almost five times that of white women this is primarily due to higher
rates of unintended pregnancy. Black women as a group want the same
number of children as white women[4],
and contend with more unplanned
pregnancies that lead to abortion. Some of the causes of these
unintended pregnancies include lack of access to effective and
affordable contraception; lack of comprehensive sex education; lack of
satisfaction with the quality of services and contraceptive methods; in
addition to cultural and linguistic barriers and poor access to
comprehensive health services. And, while seeking parity in either
abortion rates or in services is not necessarily the answer (it doesn't
make sense to treat Black women just like white women), there is much
that can be done to ensure better access, affordability, cultural
competence, and education so that Black women can make the best
reproductive decisions for themselves. As
SisterSong,
a women of color reproductive justice collective, stated during the
Georgia fight, "trust Black women" and create the best enabling
conditions for them to make the right decision for themselves and their
families. The real question in these discussions should be, have we done
enough to create those enabling conditions?
Sex selection is a complicated issue for many movements, including
the reproductive rights and justice movement, and women's rights and
human rights movements. All these movements seek to defend, protect, and
fulfill women's reproductive autonomy and yet recognize that gender
discrimination and stereotyping is what leads to sex selective
practices. Sex selection is a symptom and not the cause of gender
discrimination. In the United States, sex selective practices, like sex
selective abortions, are additionally complicated by abortion politics.
If women didn't have to fight so hard to ensure the basic right to
abortion they wouldn't be in a position where they have to take a
position on sex selective abortions. In countries like India and China,
and in most of Europe, where abortion is not a contested right,
policymakers and advocates take a position opposing sex selection
(mostly pre-pregnancy techniques) without endangering women's access to
abortion.
Anti-choice advocates are using this tactic to drive a wedge between
reproductive rights and justice groups, women's groups, feminists, and
domestic violence prevention groups. It sets up a false choice: defend
abortion and support gender discrimination, or oppose gender
discrimination and limit abortion rights.
It also seeks to create tension between communities of color and
reproductive rights groups whose first inclination is to declare it
isn't happening. Denying that sex selection is a serious concern in the
United States marginalizes the practice to Asians and immigrants, and
then trivializes their concerns. In 2008, when the legislation first
appeared, the first response of many reproductive rights groups was to
deny that sex selection was happening in the US, and if it was
happening, it was being done by a small, insignificant number of people,
or more precisely, by a small, insignificant number of Asians. South
Asian women's and domestic violence prevention groups in the U.S. pushed
back against this framing of sex selection as a "trivial" issue. For
them it is a real concern and a preference for sons is a challenge they
want to address in their communities. Given that sex selection is
happening in the United
States,[5]
denying or trivializing it is neither a real nor helpful option.
Page: 1 |
2 |
3 |
4
Next page
|