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.1 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.
- Testimony before the Georgia State Senate, March 22, 2010. [↩]
