In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Race, those billboards and abortion as genocide

Last month, Renee wrote about the “Black children are an endangered species” billboards. Now the New York Times has picked it up, in a story about how the anti-abortion movement is using race and accusations of genocide as a way to “court” supporters of color to a traditionally white, long-racist movement. The anti-choice strategy has been to hire a handful of women of color to travel around the country telling African-Americans that abortion is part of a decades-old conspiracy to kill off black people.

The tactic seems to be working, at least to a point. And it works in large part because there is a long history of trying to curtail the reproductive capacities of men and women of color. The term “black genocide conspiracy” might be met with a lot of eye-rolling from white people, but there is a legitimate back-story that enables such a theory to take hold and to grow, and there are legitimate concerns about population control and the targeting of families of color. Tuskegee. Puerto Rico. Mississippi appendectomies. Women’s bodies were used as vessels to increase the slave population, and enslaved women had no legal right to their own children. After slavery, the reproductive coercion flipped, and people of color in the United States (or people wanting or forced to come to the United States) faced anti-miscegenation laws, anti-immigrant policies, mandatory sterilization and the wide embrace of eugenics. Through the 20th century and into the 21st, the bodies and reproductive capacities of women of color were used as political warning signs — Reagan’s welfare queen, “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” and on and on.

And it’s not all “history,” either. Louisiana, last year. Criminal courts today. Women are paid to be sterilized, or otherwise coerced out of reproducing if they’re the wrong color or the wrong socioeconomic class, or if they’re addicted, or if they’re disabled.

All women face attempted infringements on their reproductive rights. But women of color in the United States have faced those infringements in a very particular way, and that’s in part why the “abortion is genocide” argument resonates.

But of course, the curtailing of reproductive rights and options for women of color (and for all women) is another piece of a long history of not allowing women to make the best reproductive choices for themselves. As Pamela points out in a really great take-down of the abortion-is-genocide argument, women of color in the United States are sorely under-served when it comes to reproductive health care (and health care generally), and it’s literally killing them. From her article:

-Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer at a later stage and are more likely to die of cervical cancer.

-Black people make up 13 percent of the population in the United States yet account for more than 49 percent of AIDS cases. AIDS is the leading cause of death for Black women between the ages 25 to 34, and the second leading cause of death for Black men between the ages 35 to 44.

-Black and Hispanic women have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

-Forty percent of Black Americans report being uninsured at some point from 2007 through 2008.

-Black women continue to die from breast cancer at alarming rates and a recent study found that half of Black teenage women reported having had one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

The anti-choice solution is to shut down Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides healthcare to under-served and low-income communities, and to try to outlaw abortion and even birth control. Only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortion-related; the vast majority of what the organization provides involves pre-natal care, STI screening, sexual health information, gynecological care, birth control prescriptions, even flu shots. When you shut down Planned Parenthood, you aren’t ending abortion — you’re cutting off access to some of the most in-need women and men. But the anti-choice logic is that no women (and especially no women of color) should be allowed to make their own choices when it comes to their reproductive lives. Oh and also that black women are perpetuating genocide by terminating pregnancies.

That logic doesn’t just apply to abortion. Anti-choicers are also trying to cut off access to contraception, so that women won’t even be able to avoid unintended pregnancy. Programs that pay low-income and drug-addicted women to be sterilized? Funded and run by anti-choice, “pro-family” Republicans. Some of the biggest voices in the anti-choice movement still go around saying that Chinese people eat babies, for Pete’s sake. “Pro-life” Republicans oppose health care reform that would help women and babies; they oppose funding organizations that provide reproductive health care; they regularly oppose funding for pre-natal and well-baby care, for day care, and for aid to families with dependent children. In a nutshell, “pro-life” organizations oppose the things that prevent abortion, and then oppose the things that would make it easier for women to choose to give birth, and then oppose things that improve the lives of mothers, families and children.

But they would like to outlaw abortion and legally compel you to carry pregnancies to term.

Miriam notes that no one needs that kind of condescending “help,” and that the divide-and-conquer strategy to curtail women’s rights is not going to work. Women of color have long worked for reproductive justice — whether that’s securing abortion rights or pushing back against environmentalist population control arguments or fighting against welfare reform. To suggest that abortion rights are genocidal and that women of color are either sitting idly back or killing their own children erases all the work that women have done to secure rights for themselves.

What women — all women — actually need is access to reproductive health care and education (and go read that link, it’s a phenomenal piece). The fact that women of color have significantly higher abortion rates than white women should give us pause; so should the fact that the United States has a much higher abortion rate than countries in Western Europe where the procedure is widely accessible. Abortion isn’t shameful, but it is something that most women would like to avoid. The crucial piece to a low abortion rate, world-wide, is access to contraception. It also doesn’t hurt to have universal health care and family-friendly policies that enable women to bear and raise children without facing poverty, job loss or total life upheaval.

There are long-standing systematic blockades in the way of women in the United States accessing a full range of reproductive rights. Women who fall outside of the white/heterosexual/cisgender/able-bodied/middle-or-upper-class identity face even taller barriers to access. Eliminating those barriers, though, takes work. It takes dedication to women’s health and women’s lives. And dedication to women’s lives? Is not something that anti-choice organizations do.


18 thoughts on Race, those billboards and abortion as genocide

  1. Great post, Jill. I find that a lot of anti-choicers tend to use that children’s “I Know you Are, But What Am I?” argument.

    “We’re the racist ones? No – YOU’RE RACIST! Black Genocide!”

    “You care about women? No – WE DO, YOU DON’T! All women regret abortion!”

    “We’re the violent ones? No – YOU’RE VIOLENT! Abortion is violence!”

    “You have facts on your side? No – WE DO! You just don’t know the TRUTH!”

    etc etc etc. It’s a pretty common thing with them, I find.

  2. I’ve spent the last 4 months or so delving into historical accounts and publications and archives of the 1900-1921 time span, looking for info about women anti-suffrage types, what was going on in the nitty gritty of feminism back then – and eugenics is EVERYWHERE – and it’s talked about so casually that it took me a while to even realize – or believe – that it wasn’t the “human” race they wanted to strengthen.

    The first thing I found was on a simple new york times archive search for “feminism” and it turned up a long illustrated article with the phrase “baby crop” in the headline. It was so bizarre – the forecast of white babies expected over the next few years – comparisons of the abilities of the races, and so on… and also how women going to college were going to ruin the baby crop for the foreseeable future. I was shocked to find out that one of the authors of that article – it was a husband and wife team – the wife at least at the time, was considered a progressive liberal! Prestonia Mann Martin was her name, a very unique name for sure.

    A good place to learn about the history of eugenics and the attitudes of the people involved in it – which was damn near everyone – is on google books, search terms like eugenics, race, family, or social science, but search only for books with “full view”.

    At this point, I’m convinced that the punitive enforcements of behavior today, as seen in the drug laws and sex laws, and much of the mental health “disorders” as defined today – are the modern extensions of eugenics – and now it’s sort of all wrapped up in what might be called the prison industrial complex.

  3. BEAUTIFUL post! If I ever thought for a second that no one was getting WHY the genocide claims even made a ripple in black communities this post showed me that someone at Feministe most certainly does.

    I can’t express how grateful I am that this was not casually dismissed but taken head on for the ugly monster that it was, not only for the distortion of the truth today by the pro-life side but by the dismissive attitude of the hard facts from the past that have been creeping into the present by the pro-choice side.

    Jill, again thank you so much for this post. I hope many stop and read it.

  4. This is beyond outrageous. The jackasses pushing this “black genocide” line are, in almost every case, the ideological (if not actual) descendants of those who have oppressed and abused black people for centuries.

    These are the people who enslaved blacks, lynched them, denied them the right to vote and denied their humanity in every way. Now they’re oh-so-concerned about the future of the race, to the point where they’re magnanimously going to advocate that black women be forced to bear children against their will?

    Fuck them. FUCK them.

  5. The information is excellent, especially the acknowledgment that contraception and abortion and activists for them have been involved in reproductive injustices against people of color. (Now if we could just get mainstream pro-choice groups to do likewise.)

    We can — those of us who are white — help without imposing our privilege on people who’ve already had plenty of it. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective (h/t Cara) is responding to this campaign and could use… everything a social justice group can always use. We need to keep saying things like the above. We need to acknowledge that for many people, their most pressing reproductive rights concern is just being able to have and to keep their children at all, and we need to make that a part of our work. It’s not going to make the movement lose focus or whatever the justification is for not addressing this.

    The more we work together, the stronger we are. When we acknowledge our guilt, we can begin to atone for it. If we keep denying it, the harm continues.

  6. The history of black reproductive justice in America is so terrible that anyone who advises for FEWER choices, FEWER options, and LESS education is just one more person perpetuating the system of control and exploitation.

  7. Hmmm. Whatever else their crimes, I am pretty sure that none of the people in this particular movement lynched, enslaved, or vote-denied any black people. Ever.

    I’d be cautious about ascribing the past instances of these awful things exclusively or especially to those people’s philosophical forebears, as well. For one thing, such connections are tricksy and often invisible. For another, progressives have our own legacy of racial issues.

  8. If messages like this were well-received by the black community, black politicians and activists would be much more in the leadership of anti-choice groups than they are. One critique that could be made of campaigns like this is how white the leadership and rank-and-file of anti-choice groups. That’s sort of a secondary argument against this sort of thing, more important is that this message is itself wrong, not just in the way it’s targeted towards one particular race/ethnic group/demographic.

    One reason for this sort of message never being as popular with the black community than the white is that it’s basically false to say that leaders in the pro-choice movement like Margaret Sanger, for example, advocated widespread use of contraception or abortion to reduce or eliminate the black race — the genocide argument. Sanger and contemporaries were eugenicists, but they basically campaigned for positive eugenics — giving support and encouragement for healthy, fit, and (sometimes) moral people to have children, rather than punitive measures like involuntary sterilization to reduce the number of the unfit.

    If someone wants to seriously review the history of this sort of thing — negative eugenics and racism — Wikipedia has a pretty good overview on the page for “scientific racism” (aka “race science”):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

    It’s interesting to read the page (and if you like, more on the topic) for what it DOES NOT have — namely any mention of pro-choice movement leaders, including Margaret Sanger.

    We don’t mean to argue Margaret Sanger is all some might say cracked up to be as a pro-choice role model, she made statements which today (and maybe even if we were alive then) one would consider objectionable, but hey, if we can’t find serious points of disagreement with movement leaders today and most likely tomorrow, we sort of lose one reason for our existence, and likewise online bloggers for the time they put into their work, and we’d instead all just work more overtime and write a check to some mainstream group like Planned Parenthood who will send us email every other day on how hard they’re working on the issue of the day and will do even more if we just donate…again. 🙂

    There’s plenty of evidence that sterilization more than (hopefully) elective procedures like abortion and contraception was used to reduce the number of “unfit” people through the 60s, at least, but as much evidence can be found if one looks hard enough to show that the various state authorities on this matter targeted people of other races, including Caucasian people, as much or in some cases (like North Carolina) statistically more than they targeted black people. A good history that explores this is a series from the Winston-Salem Journal tellingly titled “Against Their Will”:

    http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

    There is also ample evidence for sheer neglect of providing care to impoverished sick people before the development of modern social welfare system post WWII, and human experimentation on poor, less educated, or arguably incapacitated people including the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

    …and a lesser-known but similar-minded study where over 800 Caucasian pregnant women were unknowingly given drinks containing radioactive iron as part of an experiment to see how fast the isotope would cross the placental barrier:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Experiments_involving_other_radioactive_materials

    Now that – unethical human experimentation – was definitely a real issue in history and popular knowledge among, if you will, black people, and among people concerned about medical ethics and progressives of any race. But the idea that abortion and contraception were used as some sort of effective tool to reduce the black population has never had much credibility outside of well-known but somewhat extreme separatist groups like the Nation of Islam, or at least numerous spokespeople for groups like that, and even then reading their editorials and speeches on linking abortion or contraception to racism makes these references sound more like metaphors than historical fact.

    One thing all this means is like with the Tim Tebow Superbowl ad, we should focus less on attacking the ad – though this ad is a lot more worthy of discussion than the Superbowl ad – than on understanding the real history of these issues that will back up your feelings with facts and help you better prove these ads are wrong. Another focus should be engaging the community in question – which per this history really should include concerns for poorer and less educated people in general, not just black people — and addressing their concerns. Pro-choice groups are doing that, but it’s worth saying again that’s where the focus should be, and not on attacking these ads in particular.

  9. Hmmm. Whatever else their crimes, I am pretty sure that none of the people in this particular movement lynched, enslaved, or vote-denied any black people. Ever.

    Yes because the vote suppression of minorities never happens nowadays.

    /sarcasm

    Please take your whitemansplaining elsewhere.

  10. Second pololly. Yes, pro-choice folks have engaged in plenty of oppressive tactics against WOC, and I find it interesting that when confronted with this fact, rather than listening and responding by working against the oppression WOC face no matter the source, they instead bristle and rush to defend their white pro-choice peers from perceived attacks on their character. It tells you exactly which loyalties are prioritized over others.

    WOC, trans folk, disabled women, poor women all know oppressors in both the pro-choice and pro-life movements. They have been abused and mistreated on both sides, by individuals and institutional forces both. The proper response by pro-choicers should not be to cry “But those pro-lifers lie to you!!” — yes, they do, but so do you, and if you don’t actually pay attention to these complaints and work to rectify them (without the blame-shifting and insistence on innocence), exactly why should these folks forsake the pro-lifers and side with the pro-choicers? I don’t see why I should choose the tiger over the lion if both are rushing to kill me.

  11. @Amandaw, thank u so much for that comment. It’s exhausting to have ppl deny MY pain and MY history and claim they are my TRUE allies. I’m sorry, but fuck you southern students for choice. I don’t care what information YOU deem credible or what ideologies YOU deem less destructive to my community. Seriously? Are u really trying to argue that sanger’s racism was the “good” kind? Really? As a woman of color, your comment is an example of why I will NEVER align myself with mainstream orgs. You are not my movement.

  12. “positive eugenics”?

    Healthy, fit, and moral people?

    Are you serious, “southern students for choice”? Have you read anything else at this site or elsewhere about the damage eugenics and eugenic discourse does to people in marginalised bodies? We all know the eugenicists dangled their claims to have only the ‘best of intentions’. For some reason, you seem to have swallowed that bait – hook, line and sinker.

    “WOC, trans folk, disabled women, poor women all know oppressors in both the pro-choice and pro-life movements. They have been abused and mistreated on both sides, by individuals and institutional forces both. ”

    This right here; amandaw speaks the truth.

  13. @ssfc: no. just, no.

    My usual response to the “black genocide” argument is to cite the statistics for how many people having abortions cite financial reasons, and the disproportionate representation of blacks among the poor, and to suggest that maybe forcing women to have children they cannot support, paying for expensive natal care, and possibly sacrificing schooling or a job to do so, might not be the best way to solve this poverty issue.

    …It probably doesn’t work much, but if it comes up again, I may be linking people here.

  14. lauredhel wrote:

    Have you read anything else at this site or elsewhere about the damage eugenics and eugenic discourse does to people in marginalised bodies?

    Yes. Not all of us, but this author and those I can wake at this hour to text this story to (if possible) before posting are pretty likely up on it, as well as the history of eugenics. Do you think we’re advocating whatever you’re defining “eugenics” to be? I personally doubt it, but I’m not going to argue the point with you. It’s worth commenting though that saying I/we are buying their bait hook, line, and sinker means there’s some coherent science or pseudoscience you think we’re subscribing to regarding “eugenics”. There isn’t anything like that though that we could subscribe to.

    The term “eugenics” has been mentioned on this site and quite a few other progressive blogs in the context of the rights of the people in, as you put it, marginalized bodies, in discussions of welfare reform, and many other contexts without doing damage to said people. I doubt we damaged anyone, but it’s possible we offended someone, like you, for example, and if so, we’re sorry. That wasn’t our intention.

    Shelby wrote:

    Are u really trying to argue that sanger’s racism was the “good” kind?

    No. And there is no “good” kind of racism.

    A good history, probably agreeable to people on numerous sides of issues related to Sanger, is at her Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

    Sanger had numerous personal beliefs, engaged in various actions, and advocated positions relatively early in her career that nearly anyone would believe is bad science, discriminatory to say the least against disabled people, and offensive to even mention. The Wikipedia article has a pretty accurate accounting of the worst things she’s ever said or taken a position on in these regards. She changed her position over time, pretty much in keeping with changes in mainstream science and politics that supported making safe and effective means of birth control available, which is what she was driven in her life to be an advocate for. Unfortunately, Sanger’s objectionable positions on numerous issues were in agreement with much of science and law at the time, and there were people in power who took contemporary thought on “eugenics” to extremes, even rationalizing genocide. Sanger was never an advocate for that, spoke out against that that on numerous occasions, and it’s notable in the history of “scientific racism” which was allied with eugenic theories that rationalized the worst oppressions of the time, including genocide, that Sanger and anyone who might be considered allied with her in the birth control movement are essentially nowhere to be found in that history. Placing Sanger in that context was done by anti-choice revisionists, but that’s another story.

    But leaving aside Sanger for a moment, there were scientists and others who never subscribed to “eugenics” as a rationalization for discrimination in any form.

    There were scientists and others who were leaders in developing science, law, and policy which was antiracist, antisexist, and politically pretty much in line with modern social democracies from the early decades of the 20th century — Sanger’s heyday — to the recent past. One who we like, who we’d much rather talk about, and who in fact we’ve mentioned on this website before in another thread is Ashley Montague:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Montague

    …who is worth reading about if you’re not familiar with him. Check out our comment, #41 on this page:

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/12/03/boo-its-a-baby/

    Quote:

    Most of his work spanned the late 30s through the early 90s, and was a strong influence on both the civil rights movement (through his writings on race, which included editing the post-WWII 1950 UNESCO statement The Race Question which influenced Brown v. Topeka) and the second wave feminist movement, through his works on nurturing, and so many other issues that if you’re not familiar with his name and books it’s worth at least skimming some bios of his. Some of his writing is a little dated or speculative, but there’s so much that’s grounded in science that’s proven correct over decades it’s worth getting his take at least on nurturing, human social development, and critiques of racism, sexism, and various kinds of bigotry, as much as one might from any living author or scientist today.

    If you’re wondering where we’re coming from, and where we’d like to go, his work pretty much gives a good starting point for discussion. Another time, at least.

    1. southern students for choice-athens, We at Feministe, all of us, have discussed you, all of you. We have come to the conclusion that you are either one person pretending to be multiple people, or do not understand how online handles work (hint: in order for authors to be held accountable, you need a handle for each person!). We also decided that your comments are always much too long and have a tendency to take over threads, that your comments are also often derailing or confusing, and that in addition, they are frequently rather offensive. So We, all of us, are very sorry to say, that We have decided that your time being allowed to comment here is up.

      Other folks on the thread, since it’s not really fair to argue with someone who can’t respond, let’s please not do that.

  15. Just an FYI, that whole “Chinese people eat babies” rant that Stanek was apparently on? The video she linked was from a movie called “Dumplings” and significant parts of the quotes she used to support her accusations came directly from the same film. Amusingly, the film in question was about the insane lengths society expect women to go to in order to maintain beauty standards. So not only is she making ridiculous accusations but she has trouble separating reality from fiction.

Comments are currently closed.