Nevertheless, I think it's important for reproductive justice activists to have a serious discussion -- immediately -- about public policies, reproductive justice and President Obama's Administration.
Reproductive justice is built
on the foundation of human rights. The framework of "reproductive
justice" requires that the most vulnerable populations be kept in
the center of our lens, not at the margins. This means that we may have
to work hard and quickly to create a public policy platform worthy of
and capable of doing justice to the reproductive justice framework.
The shape of things
Although the reasons may be obvious why the reproductive justice community must be engaged and clear about what we want, I'd like to state a few points to get them organized in my head:
1. This may be the best opportunity
to advance a reproductive justice agenda in my lifetime (okay, I'm
over 50 so my urgency may be simply age-related).
2. We have developed strong values in the reproductive justice movement that keep the most vulnerable among us at the top of our concerns: girls, poor women, young women, incarcerated women, lgbtq folks, substance-abusing women, immigrant women, disabled women, teen mothers.
3. We have great collaborations
among the leading groups promoting reproductive justice at the grassroots.
4. We have an exciting framework that has transformed the pro-choice movement by raising critical intersectional issues on race, gender, class, age, sexual orientation, ability and immigration in a way that is being heard and embraced beyond women of color.
5. We have allies in the Obama
Administration who are strong, have serious integrity and care as strongly
as we do about the vulnerable populations and issues we prioritize.
6. We have determined opposition
from those opposed to human rights - not just for women of color,
but those who also oppose bringing the United States to human rights
conversations in a constructive way, either domestically or internationally.
7. We have well-financed anti-woman, anti-gay forces in communities of color that will try to thwart any reproductive justice agenda.
8. And we have a small economic crisis on our hands.
Having said all of that, I believe we need to have a discussion about how we can take advantage of this historic moment to advance a reproductive justice agenda that will benefit women, men and families of color to advance and protect their full human rights.
How do we get what we want?
I believe we need to organize
an agenda around three important and convergent conversations:
First, we need to discuss what
we believe. As reproductive justice activists evolving into a powerful
movement, we need to seek agreement on our non-negotiables.
Will we sacrifice poor women
during policy discussions on abortion, failing to insist on the repeal
of the Hyde Amendment because "conventional wisdom" says "taxpayers
don't want to pay for abortions for poor women?"
Will we sacrifice lesbians and trans folks if they do not fit poster-child images of who needs to be covered under regulations of assisted reproductive technologies? Will we fight for the sexual and mothering rights of women who are incarcerated even while our society dismisses their needs as people who have few human rights? Will we insist that women who are disabled have the same sexual rights as women who are not disabled? Will we demand that the sexual rights of young people are respected?
Exactly who will we sacrifice
on the altar of expedience? Who will make that call?
Second, we need to discuss what we want. This means that we not only want access to public policy tables, but in fact, to change the fundamental nature of what's served at those tables. Too often, women are forced to compromise on our human rights, or told to wait for a more propitious time to ask for what we need and deserve. Do we want public policies that appear to work, but don't really meet our needs?
For example, in the 1980s,
I worked to help pass the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. I protested
when the Washington Beltway "experts" said we could not ask for
paid leave because the opponents would not accept that. I knew that
without paid leave, many women would not be able to take advantage of
the FMLA. In fact, many more women would be excluded than covered because
few of us can afford an unpaid leave without ending up homeless. I was
told that we could come back and amend the bill later to include paid
leave. I'm still waiting for that day to come sixteen years later.
This is an example of what
can happen when we are not clear and united in demanding what we want.
We are vulnerable to classic divide-and-conquer strategies by both our
allies and our opponents. It is often believed that any bill is better
than no bill. It is also believed that opportunities to re-launch new
fights to fix flawed legislation will easily occur. I do not agree.
I believe that it's better to draw our lines in the sand and hold those lines! If we can't produce public policies that benefit the people we most care about, then we should never put ourselves in the position of explaining why we didn't win the fight for them or, even worse, why we abandoned them for an easier victory.
Third, we need to discuss how to get what we want. Women of color have fought to get a seat at policy tables for the past century. Often they have affected the discussions and outcomes. They have done so by not confusing access with influence, or influence with power.
A seat at the table does not
guarantee the power to ensure that the priorities of women of color
are shared by others at the table. A photo-op may look impressive in
an organizational report, but unless we truly can bring quality and
intersectional results home to our communities, why should they believe
we are much different from those who have disappointed them in the past?
For this reason, I believe
we have to be extremely strategic about bringing the grassroots folks
we represent to the policy debates. The central question for me is not
whether any organization (even my own, SisterSong, as much as I'd
like to meet President Obama!) gets a representative seat in policy
discussions. The more urgent question is whether we will continue to
invest in our base building strategies so that when we get to the table
we have the organized power of our constituencies at our back.
Too often, we are told that
shortcuts are possible and necessary because community organizing and
mobilizing is slow, painstaking and nebulous work, especially when we
don't have the backing of the corporate media or other levers of power,
such as adequate funding. It may be tempting for our donors to urge
us to engage in public policy debates, but not provide us with adequate
resources to do base building and public policy work at the same time.
This has happened before to women of color organizations in which the policy work became the tail wagging the dog and resources to do community organizing are devalued over the more quantifiable and visible policy work. The potential outcome of such a division could be women of color representatives in Washington without a constituency that can be mobilized to bring our power to bear to support our allies and oppose our foes.
Keeping our vision front and center
Discussions of this sort truly reveal the transformative power of the reproductive justice framework for me.
At present, we have few platforms
or policy vehicles capable of carrying our intersectional analysis and
serving the people we prioritize. Not only is most legislation of the
"single issue" variety, but the negotiations for even these limited
bills usually end up lopping off the very people who most need the laws.
Can we envision violence against
women legislation that protects women raped in prisons and ensures they
have humane birth control, birthing and abortion services?
Can we picture an economic recovery that destigmatizes welfare and welcomes immigrants (legal or undocumented) to receive vital supports from the society they hold up with their labor?
With whom in power do we have these critical discussions who won't dismiss us for asking for the "impossible"?
I don't know the answers
to these questions, but I'm sure of this: only a carefully thought-out
approach will enable us to present our beliefs, wants and strategies
to President Obama's Administration. I do not expect that he will
be able to give us everything we want and deserve. I am sure, however,
that we certainly won't get it if we don't ask.
And that means drawing some lines in the sand and holding our president accountable. People like us who believed his message of hope and change were the ones who helped him get that seat of power. But he can't deliver our dreams to us without mobilizing our power.
]]>This post first appeared on On The Issues.
As an organization that represents both pro-life and pro-choice women of color, SisterSong believes that poor women should have the same rights and access as middle class women in making decisions about our bodies. But the Hyde Amendment and other federal rules prohibit federal funding for abortion services for poor women on Medicaid, for Native American women in the Indian Health Services, for women in the military and in the Peace Corps. As a first step, the Hyde Amendment should be repealed -- immediately!
The government should not be in the business of telling us what to do with our reproductive choices. These are our private decisions. The situation is comparable to choosing to fly in an airplane. The government should not tell us which airline to use, which destination to choose or if we should fly at all. But the government does have an obligation to ensure that the airlines are safe, that the airfares are affordable and that the airports are accessible. The questions of safety, affordability and accessibility are necessary to enable our private decisions to be meaningful.
The same is true when it comes to abortion. Poor women demand the right to safe, affordable and accessible conditions in which to implement our private decisions on whether or not to have children. A manufactured “consensus,” claiming that the new administration should not fight for the reproductive rights of poor women, is simply wrong.
For more than 30 years, we’ve fought as women of color for the rights of poor women. We will not stand silently or meekly while others advise the administration that our needs don’t matter, or that they don’t suit bipartisan politics. Fighting for the needs of poor women is truly bipartisan, and there are Republicans who agree with us, just as there are pro-lifers working within our reproductive justice organizations.
If we are really entering a new phase of politics, we have to stop selling out poor people to appease opponents of women’s human rights. There is nothing original in that strategy.
Our real allies know that abortion rights are a fundamental part of women’s healthcare and that women have the right to have children, to not have children, and to parent the children we have. Political expedience has sacrificed us for too long. “Conventional wisdom” is neither conventional or wise if it says we should only reach for “common ground” and forget that women who need birth control, sex education and other reproductive health services also need abortion rights.
As women of color, we helped elect Barack Obama – much more strongly than the 55 percent of white America who voted against him. He should not start his administration by betraying us to appease those who do not share his vision of human rights for all, especially protecting the rights of poor women of color.
]]>This article was first published by On the Issues.
African American women who care about reproductive justice know that the limited membership in the Black anti-abortion movement doesn’t represent our views and we are not fooled into thinking that they care about gender justice for women. In fact, if they had their way, we would be re-enslaved once again, based on our fertility.
But the Black anti-abortion movement needs to be taken seriously. The people involved in it carefully exploit religious values to make inroads into our communities. They poison the soil in which we must toil.
Carefully orchestrated campaigns by Black surrogates for the religious and political right not only oppose abortion, but they also organize on behalf of many other right wing causes, such as opposing stem cell research, supporting charter schools and opposing affirmative action.
Through clever positioning and photo-ops by the right wing, the Black anti-abortion movement appears stronger and more numerous than it actually is. Generously funded by a predominantly white anti-abortion movement desperate for Black representatives, the Black anti-abortion movement seeks to drive a wedge into the African American community.
They tell African American women that we are now responsible for the genocide of our own people. Talk about a “blame the victim” strategy! We are now accused of “lynching” our children in our wombs and practicing white supremacy on ourselves. Black women are again blamed for the social conditions in our communities and demonized by those who claim they only want to save our souls (and the souls of our unborn children). This is what lies on steroids look like.
Opposition Research Needed
Who are these people in the Black anti-abortion movement? This movement needs to be carefully studied through opposition research. Information on them, their connections to white anti-abortion groups and their sources of funding is scant.
Of course, the most famous of the Black anti-abortionists is Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a Pastoral Associate, a member of the avid anti-abortion group Priests for Life, and Director of African American Outreach for the Gospel of Life Ministries. Because her father was Dr. King’s brother, Alveda is the leading voice for linking the anti-abortionists to the Civil Rights movement. This is despite the fact that both Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were strong supporters of family planning in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular. Alveda King, who lives in Atlanta, has also spoken out strongly against gay rights and in support of charter schools.
A widely known Black anti-abortion minister is Rev. Clenard H. Childress of New Jersey, founder of the BlackGenocide.org project and website. He is the president of the Northeast Chapter of Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), established in 1993. He claims that the “high rate of abortion has decimated the Black family and destroyed Black neighborhoods to the detriment of society at large.” He led protests at the 2008 NAACP convention in Cincinnati and has accused the organization of practicing racism against Black children. He is also on the board of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform that circulates the Genocide Awareness Project.
Alan Keyes, perennial presidential candidate, is also well known in anti-abortion circles. Keyes first came to national attention when President Reagan appointed him as adviser to Maureen Reagan (daughter of the president), as she led the official U.S. delegation to the UN World Conference for Women in Kenya in 1985. At this meeting, the U.S. affirmed its support for the infamous 1984 “Mexico City” policy that banned U.S. funds from supporting abortion worldwide. Keyes helped lead the anti-abortion protests at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, and is a favorite of the right for his fierce extreme views on a number of issues.
There are a handful of other Black spokespeople for the anti-abortion movement. The point is not how many there are, but the disproportionate impact they have. They have created the false impression that if only Black people were warned that abortion is genocide, women would stop having them in order to preserve the Black race, either voluntarily or pressured by the men in their lives.
The Sexism They Sell
The sexism in their viewpoints is mind-boggling. To them, Black women are the poor dupes of the abortion rights movement, lacking agency and decision-making of our own. In fact, this is a reassertion of Black male supremacy over the self-determination of women. It doesn’t matter whether it is from the lips of a man or a woman. It is about re-enslaving Black women by making us breeders for someone else’s cause.
I am reminded of the comments of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman in Congress, who dismissed the genocide argument when asked to discuss her views on abortion and birth control:
To label family planning and legal abortion programs “genocide” is male rhetoric, for male ears. It falls flat to female listeners and to thoughtful male ones. Women know, and so do many men, that two or three children who are wanted, prepared for, reared amid love and stability, and educated to the limit of their ability will mean more for the future of the Black and brown races from which they come than any number of neglected, hungry, ill-housed and ill-clothed youngsters.
We need our leading African American women’s and Civil Rights organizations to speak out more strongly in support of reproductive justice. We need to organize young people to resist the misinformation directed at them by these groups. Many of our campuses are unaware of the activities of the Black anti-abortionists until they show up, usually invited by a white anti-abortion group.
But mostly, we need to let the world know that they do not speak for Black women. As my mother would say, “they might be our color, but they are not our kind.”
]]>This piece first appeared at On The Issues magazine.