It seems clear that these "pro-woman,
pro-life" campaigns have usurped images and ideas that were once
in the domain of the reproductive rights and justice movements. Young
women of color are featured in both campaigns, and it takes only a small
leap of my imagination to change the taglines to "Immigrants Deserve
Better" or "Affirmative Action Changes You." Though the
tactics have shifted from fringe pictorials of the macabre to poignant
woman-centric portraits, the goal remains the same: eliminate a woman's
right to choose an abortion. Unlike the campaigns of the past
however, the more recent anti-choice ads also function to chip away
at the underpinning of our reproductive rights law by giving the state
a new interest in "protecting" women from abortion.
The Supreme Court declared in Roe v. Wade that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." But the Court did not declare the right to privacy to be an absolute right, and said that a woman's privacy right "must be considered against important state interests in regulation." Thus, Roe has become vulnerable to anti-choice arguments that are based on the belief that the state should regulate women's decisions about abortion because the state knows what is good for women. Instead of advancing notions of gender equality over the years, our reproductive rights jurisprudence has become increasingly paternalistic.
Would this have happened if the Justices had decided Roe v. Wade on equal protection grounds instead? I think not.
The Declaration of Independence proclaims that, "all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Yet the ideal of equal rights for all individuals was contradicted by the existence of slavery and the denial of rights to some people because of their race or gender. In fact, the word "equality," did not appear in the Constitution until passage of the three Reconstruction-Era amendments: the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment in particular declares that no state may deny "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Federal courts have also applied equal protection limitations to the federal government through their interpretation of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. In short, the equal protection clause ensures that neither federal nor state governments may classify people in ways that violate their liberties or rights under the U.S. Constitution.
What is significant to me about the 14th Amendment equal protection clause is that it applies to "any person" (emphasis mine). The text does not specify "man," "woman," or "citizen" is subject to the equal protection of the laws. Applied to the reproductive rights context, this means that advancing reproductive rights and justice is fundamentally about achieving equality for all people. We cannot subordinate one group's struggle over another. Had Roe v. Wade been decided on equal protection grounds, our fight for reproductive rights would extend beyond stopping government intrusion. It would be focused on dismantling all barriers to access and ensuring that all individuals are entitled to meaningful access to health care.
The ideal of equality forces us to think beyond the individual and to carefully consider how inequality can impact a group's ability to thrive based on a number of variables including race, class, gender identity and citizenship status. Hence, we cannot look at issues in isolation or through a singular classification. It is for this reason that many reproductive justice advocates are also involved in the struggle for comprehensive immigration reform, prison abolition and health care reform. In all of these movements, men and women are making demands on the government for better protections and conditions for those who are most impacted by inequality.
Principles of equality also encourage us to look long-term and dream about the type of country we want. Perhaps it would have helped us avoid repeat ballot initiatives like California's Prop 4 and the South Dakota's Measure 11, where short-sighted approaches for fending off the initiatives resulted in the opposition tightening their strategies and more effectively honing their messages.
Making the government responsible for securing equal protection is not a paternalistic function. Rather, it would reframe reproductive rights as fundamental to achieving gender equality, and would pave the way to developing a doctrine of affirmative rights that can be integrated with human rights. As Election Day draws near, let's vote for a government that goes beyond keeping laws off our bodies. Instead, let's vote for a government that can create laws to keep our bodies and communities safe and healthy.
]]>What's more, immigrant women bear the brunt of these anti-immigrant attacks. Take the issue of birthright citizenship. Since the early 1990s, this 14th Amendment right has been under assault by nativist organizations like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, who successfully lobbied Congress members to introduce legislation that would repeal and replace the Citizenship Clause with a provision that would restrict birthright citizenship to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. Over the years, restricting birthright citizenship has gained such popularity among conservative circles that the Republican party included it in their 1996 party platform. More recently, current and former Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have voiced their support for ending this birthright. (Last month, Mike Huckabee was also reputed to support the effort to change our birthright citizenship laws, but later withdrew his support.)
What would it mean to end this right? Critics of birthright citizenship remain largely silent about the practical and legal consequences of implementing such a change, but it seems undeniable that eliminating this right would create an underclass of U.S. born children who are "aliens" in their own homeland. Restricting birthright citizenship to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents would mean that children born to undocumented immigrant women or immigrant women with temporary visas would have no status under the law. They will be neither immigrant nor citizen and lack a national identity. In essence, ending birthright citizenship would create a new classification that would only apply to the offspring of mostly immigrant women of color. Moreover, it is an outcome that would put our country hundreds of years back to the slave era, when the status of your birthmother determined your status as a slave or a free man.
Population growth is another issue that fuels anti-immigrant hysteria. News of a "baby boomlet" at the beginning of the year prompted unfair attacks against immigrant women and their child-bearing capacities. While economists lauded the news as a positive indicator for the country's future prosperity, leaders and supporters of the anti-immigrant movement interpreted it as a negative consequence of the country's "liberal" immigration laws. According to conservatives like John Vinson, president of the American Immigration Control Foundation, foreigners migrate to the U.S. because "[a U.S. born] child is an automatic American citizen, thus entitled to all benefits of American citizens. This gives a certain financial incentive for people coming from other countries illegally to have children here." Several conservative blogs and online comment boards similarly exploded with vitriolic attacks against immigrant women, blaming them for a range of social ills from "overpopulation" to the nation's current budget deficit.
Notably, the higher birth rates of Asian and Latina immigrant women are often unfavorably compared to the national average, yet little is mentioned of the high birth rates of certain predominantly-white religious groups, such as Mormons. In 2006, Utah, which is over 70% Mormon, reported an average birth rate of 19.2 births per 1,000 persons compared to the national average of 13.9 per 1,000 persons. The Church also encourages high fertility rates; according to orthodox Mormons, the ideal Mormon family should have about four children. In recent years, white fundamentalist Protestants have also seen a boost in birth rates as part of a little-known movement called "natalism." These suburb-loving families often include four or more children, concentrate in counties that are nearly 100% white and view parenthood as a calling. Yet, why haven't pundits or "population control" theorists called on Mormon or Christian fundamentalist women to control their ovaries?
That's because there's a political correlation between communities with high white fertility rates and the conservative vote. In 2004, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest birth rates, while John Kerry took the 16 states with the lowest rates. It is not surprising then that conservatives like to detract attention away from their own childbearing patterns by accusing immigrant women of having too many children and burdening everything from the environment to the U.S. health care, tax, and public benefits systems (more myths that anti-immigrants like to promote). In short, the claim that the anti-immigrant movement is not a racist one is false. And it's another reason why the social justice movement must continue to work together to engage in anti-racist and anti-sexist advocacy.
]]>So what did the study point to as "proof" that there's no such thing as "immigrant family values?" It pointed to the high rate of single motherhood among immigrant women. The study, entitled, "Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives" takes a critical look at immigrant women (particularly Latinas) and frowns on the "bad" reproductive choices they've made.
Here are some of their findings:
Interestingly, the entire study is based on the premise that giving birth as an unwed woman is bad, while giving birth as a married woman is good. This is the same principle that has driven the conservative's decades-long movement to push marriage as the solution to a host of social problems including decreased welfare dependency and promiscuity. However, as reproductive justice advocates, we recognize that "family" comes in many shapes and sizes, and that marriage does little to "fix" the underlying factors that cause poverty.
Notably, the study also cites Daniel Patrick Moynihan's infamous 1965 report, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," which attacked the matriarchal structure of poor African-American families and proposed military enlistment for young black men as the solution to the "deterioration of the Negro family." Both the Moynihan report and the CIS study assume that nuclear family structures are the ideal standard and both dismiss alternative family structures—particularly those that are headed by single or unmarried women—as morally destructive and socially deviant.
In addition, it's important to note the more underhanded reason that the CIS study compares the out of wedlock birth rates of immigrant women to that of African-American women: to divide communities of color on the immigration debate. The sexual and reproductive decisions of women of color have always come under scrutiny, and the United States (along with many countries in the Global North) has a long history of trying to control the fertility of low-income women of color. As such, women's bodies have long been the political battleground for oppressive policy-making. Immigration reform is no different.
If reproductive justice means, as it does at NAPAWF, that women and girls have the right to make well-informed decisions about their bodies, health, sexualities, families, and communities, then we must ensure that feminist viewpoints are inserted loud and clear in the immigration debate. As the Senate continues debate on its compromise immigration bill—which proposes to remove most family-based categories for immigration, a process that has allowed most immigrant women to enter the U.S.—immigrant women may lose all hope of reuniting with their loved ones.
As the study suggests, immigrant motherhood is also seen as a national security threat. Conservatives view immigrant women's wombs as the gateway to anchor babies and so-called "chain migration." (Let me be clear that chain migration IS a myth; the average immigrant sponsors just 1.2 family members to the U.S.) Some liberal groups have also become critical of immigrant women of reproductive age because of the fear that immigrant families will trigger overpopulation. Yet the underlying concern in both camps is that immigrant women, on average, give birth to more children than non-immigrant women and therefore threaten to overcome the country's slowing (white) population. In an effort to deter immigrant women from giving birth, Congress has responded to these fears by introducing bills that would deny birthright citizenship, a right conferred by the 14th Amendment, to the children of undocumented women.
Clearly, immigrant rights and immigration reform are reproductive justice issues. We must stand together and ensure that all women, regardless of their citizenship status, have the ability to make healthy reproductive and life choices.
(For more on this perspective and an anti-violence take on the meaning of family, check out the Women of Color blog.)
]]>