This article is a response to Michele Bratcher Goodwin's "Reproductive Carrots and Sticks" in this issue.

In documenting the different ways reproductive freedom translates across race, class and gender, Michele Goodwin argues that the new fetal drug laws (FDLs) are a punitive and punishing strategy for regulating some women's reproduction. Like Dorothy Roberts, she argues that this regulation is deeply embedded in reproductive hierarchies that have been a part of American politics and society since the days of slavery.[1] While Goodwin contrasts the reproductive punishment of FDLs with the supposed reproductive freedoms of assisted reproductive technologies, a new tactic is being employed, alluding to old eugenic fears and raising new fears of "designer babies," to argue for banning abortion based on sex selection and race. This attempt to regulate sex selection is a foreshadow for emerging attempts to regulate assisted reproductive technologies.

In this "Reproductive Stick 2.0," anti-choice advocates are seeking to outlaw sex-selective, and what they call, "race-selective" abortions. This tactic first emerged in 2008, when Representative Trent Franks (R-AZ) proposed the "Susan B. Anthony Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2008," which he re-introduced the following year as the "Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009." Citing opposition to race and gender discrimination, race-based violence, and the United Nation's Commission on the Status of Women, the bill purports to "prohibit discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex or race, and for other purposes." The bill stated that sex selective abortions in the United States "have the effect of diminishing the representation of women in the American population, and therefore, the American electorate," and that the high rates of abortion among African American women amounts to "race selective abortion" and has the effect of diminishing the number of minorities in society.

Reproductive health care providers and abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood of America, are the ostensible targets of this proposed Act. The legislation would punish, by fine and/or imprisonment, anyone who "knowingly" performs an abortion with information that it is being sought based on the sex or race of the child or parent; anyone who uses force or the threat of force to intentionally injure or intimidate any person for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection or race-selection abortion, or attempts to do so; or anyone who solicits or accepts funds for the purpose of financing a sex-selection abortion or race-selection abortion.[2]

"Black Children are and Endangered Species" billboard

While this federal legislation didn't advance in Congress, 2010 saw a proliferation of similar legislation in five states—Georgia, Arizona, Mississippi, New Jersey and Idaho, along with legislation against sex selective abortions in Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma and West Virginia. In Georgia, the race component of the legislation was highlighted with a provocative series of billboards in Atlanta proclaiming, "Black Children Are an Endangered Species." The billboards directed viewers to a website hosted by the Radiance Foundation and funded by Georgia Right to Life, the primary proponent of the legislation. Featuring the striking image of a frightened young black boy, with the words "Black and Unwanted" above his face, this billboard campaign tapped into powerful fears about historical and current medical mistreatment and eugenic campaigns against Black Americans.

Leveraging a collective sense of shame, unease and outrage over "missing girls" and racist eugenics, this legislation and campaign is emerging as the latest tactic of the anti-abortion movement to regulate the reproductive lives of women of color and limit access to abortion for all women. Similar to FDLs, the proponents of this legislation tap into deep emotions and claim to be protecting and saving babies, in this case Black and Asian babies. Likewise, they seek to punish providers of reproductive health services. And like FDLs, these legislative efforts are under-inclusive. In the case of sex selection, they don't include pre-pregnancy sex selection such as sperm sorting technology or embryo testing in vitro, two techniques that are more expensive and offered in fertility clinics. In terms of race and selection, they are also under-inclusive in that they don't include the racialized marketing and screening of sperm and egg donors, both of which are ubiquitous and unapologetic in the use of race as a criteria for selection.

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.

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.

Organizations like Generations Ahead, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice argue that we need to discourage sex selection while protecting women's access to abortion.[6] These organizations recognize sex selection as not only a practice rooted in gender discrimination and stereotyping, but also based on the idea of a gender binary. They hold that it should be discouraged, but discouraged based on changing the context within which women are making their decisions. This means that we need to address the gender bias that leads to particular preferences, tackle the gender stereotypes that create assumptions about desirable and un-desirable characteristics, and un-do the notion of two fixed and discrete genders from which one can choose. This work of true social change cannot be accomplished by banning some women's access to abortion. The carrots to change individual behaviors are based in cultural change and require a long-term commitment, and once again, the question is, have we focused enough on this area of work?

FDLs and sex/race selective abortion bans become easy and convenient tools for anti-choice forces to expand "fetal rights" at the expense of women. And at the confluence of racism and classism, women of color are the most vulnerable targets for these legislative campaigns. While beating back attempts that further demonize and punish women of color, our job as reproductive justice advocates is to invest just as heavily in campaigning for those reproductive carrots—universal health care, access to abortion, comprehensive sex education, pay equity, and Title IX funding. As reproductive justice advocates we need to expand the fight to include the enabling conditions that allow women to make the best reproductive decisions for themselves, their families, and their communities. Simply fighting to defeat bad legislation or even fighting for good legislation is not enough, especially as these reproductive sticks begin to use racism and sexism against us and drive a wedge between us. The best anti-wedge strategy will be a comprehensive reproductive justice campaign.

Hopefully to their dismay, this anti-choice campaign on race, abortion, and sex selection is proving to be an excellent opportunity for the pro-choice movement. It has brought advocates and organizations from reproductive health, rights, and justice groups together to take a stance against racism and sexism, develop a more comprehensive agenda, and ensure the right to abortion for all women. It has created new and stronger alliances between health, rights, and justice groups and has created the opportunity to work with women's groups, domestic violence groups, and racial justice groups. The movement is beginning to develop new messages, that capture the complex intersections of race, class, gender, and immigration and argue for a more comprehensive agenda for stronger women and stronger families. New leadership has emerged within the movement on this issue, particularly women of color leaders, as they have the strongest, most authentic, and most outraged voices on this issue. The latest racist and sexist tactic of the anti-abortion movement could divide the pro-choice movement, but right now it is looking like it might just make it stronger.

Endnotes

1. Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and The Meaning of Liberty (New York: Pantheon, 1997); and "Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia?" Signs 34: 783-804. [Return to text]

2. H.R.1822: Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009. [Return to text]

3. Testimony before the Georgia State Senate, March 22, 2010. [Return to text]

4. S.A. Cohen, "Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture," Guttmacher Policy Review (2008). [Return to text]

5. Jason Abrevaya, "Are There Missing Girls in the United States? Evidence from Birth Data," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1.2 (2008): 1-34; and Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund, "Son-Biased Sex Ratios in the 2000 United States Census," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 105.15 (2008). [Return to text]

6. Generations Ahead, National Asian Pacific Women's Forum, and Asian Communities for Reproductive Jusice, "Taking a Stand: Tools for Action on Sex Selection" (PDF) (2010). [Return to text]