In the era of what passes for political discourse today, nothing should surprise. And yet, this still manages.
The forced birth movement doesn’t generally shy away from less scrupulous tactics such as physically intimidating and harassing vulnerable women who desire a completely legal medical procedure, or displaying the worst sort of graphic pictures that are designed to tar each tragic case with the same broad brush. They’ll even spread around medical information that’s completely false, and even give silent encouragement to those who wish to take a life in the service of their cause–all while they deem as murderers those who take the opposite side of the still-heated public policy argument of whether women should have control over their own bodies or not. But even at that, there’s a strong qualitative difference between being accused of murder and being accused of racially motivated genocide. And this transitional period from February’s Black History Month to International Women’s Day on March 8 seems like a perfect time to have the conversation about the demographics of choice–especially given the context of who is making the attack.
There is clearly no shortage of irony, hypocrisy or cynicism at work here. That the Party of Lee Atwater, the Southern Strategy and Reagan’s “welfare queens” would turn away from their economic and social Darwinism and act as the defenders of the race they have consistently despised is nothing short of mind-numbing. But from a framing perspective, defending oneself against charges like this is not the easiest thing. The moment one engages in a debate about whether one is or is not engaging in genocide–the moment it becomes a debatable question–is the moment one has already lost.
Primarily, this has to do with the issue of media balance that was touched on in a previous column:
Ironically, the truth is the most common casualty of the pursuit of objectivity. Climate change is an oft-cited example: in many old media outlets, those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change are often given inches equal to those who do. This is in spite of the fact that its existence is documented by extensive scientific evidence, while deniers are a tiny minority usually funded by corporations with a political agenda. This is done, of course, in the interest of supposed fairness. And when the question is the basis for contentious policy decisions, that “balance” may be forgivable. But when the question posed by conservatives becomes “is the duly elected President really a Caucasian-hating Bolshevik?” a harder line becomes necessary.
The question of whether our President is a Caucasian-hating Bolshevik differs little in its acceptability from that of whether Planned Parenthood is seeking to assist in the extinction of the African-American race. But would a reader of what passes for journalism from the Los Angeles Times know that? Not likely:
Many African American women who support abortion rights find that message patronizing and offensive.
“Ryan is a young advertising executive who has stepped into a food fight that he doesn’t quite understand,” said Loretta Ross, 56, national coordinator of SisterSong, an Atlanta-based coalition of 80 women’s groups that work on reproductive health issues for minorities.
“To be honest, black women aren’t fooled by zealots or the church or even the individual men in our lives,” Ross said. “We know that the bottom line is you don’t have much control over your life when you don’t control your body. Should a rapist have the right to choose the mother of his child? That’s what Ryan is saying.”
But many abortion foes focus on the sheer numbers involved.
Catherine Davis, minority outreach director for Georgia Right to Life, visits black college campuses, bringing the message that abortion is a destructive force for blacks. She often screens a movie called “Maafa 21,” made by Texas antiabortion group Life Dynamics, alleging that blacks have been targeted for abortions since the end of slavery by white elites fearful of uncontrolled population growth.
It’s hard to know where to begin here, but context is clearly missing: it doesn’t require much explanation as to why “traditional” white Southern elites would use forced abortions alongside lynchings, lack of suffrage and education that was separate, though anything but equal, as a tool to suppress the social and economic power of the African-American community. The technical party affiliation of this “traditional” movement has changed, of course: after Republican President Lincoln emancipated the slaves, traditional conservative Southerners became Democrats, until Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson enacted civil rights over the objections of those who apparently still wished they owned slaves–upon which the conservative South became Republican again in short order.
The modern version of this conservative movement is only slightly different in that it seeks to end “income redistribution” and “entitlement programs” and lower the taxes of those who “actually work for a living”–a tried and true Lee Atwater dogwhistle to rile resentment against traditionally disadvantaged communities. But because this movement also happens to seek to restrict freedom of choice for all women, this absurd treatment in the Times now views it as diametrically opposed to the institutionalized racism of which it is an ideological outgrowth.
Concomitantly, any article that equates forced abortion advocates with the progressive movement that seeks to make sure that all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, have access to whatever reproductive health measure they choose of their own accord, fails dismally at understanding the motivations of either side.
As with so many other issues, it is easy for conservatives, both social and economic, to engage in the rankest forms of hypocrisy because outside of decentralized progressive media and certain talk show hosts on MSNBC, no media figures hold conservatives accountable for their inconsistencies in the name of balance. After reading an article such as this, one would think that organizations that provide access to abortions are going up to every pregnant woman they encounter, whether planned or not, and seducing them with Rasputin-style forced persuasion to abort their fetuses. Or that Planned Parenthood, which only spends 3% of its budget on provision of abortions, is somehow dedicated to eugenics because of the eight-year-old view of its founder–which are only controversial by modern standards.
Regarding the issue at hand, it shouldn’t be any surprise that socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities have higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies, as well as the higher abortion rates that would be expected to go hand-in-hand. But instead of focusing on the symptom and driving it underground into a much more pernicious, dangerous and unregulated form, the movement that calls itself “pro-life” can prove its concern by showing it cares for members of minority communities after they’re born. How would they? By working to guarantee health care as a human right for all Americans. By ensuring a well-funded public education system. By guaranteeing all expectant mothers access to prenatal care for their unborn children. By ensuring an economic playing field that is not just absent from discrimination, but seeks to invest in disadvantaged communities. And through ensuring that women and girls are free from violence, coercion or threats from their partners and families as they seek to make one of the hardest decisions of their lives. In short, by doing everything possible to ensure that every woman will be able to care for a child should she choose to have one.
After all–if you felt there was a genocide occurring, wouldn’t you do what you could to stop it?
P.S. the religious right wing has been very effective at nibbling around the edges of Roe v. Wade to limit access to reproductive health. As the Women’s Reproductive Rights Assistance Project says, the numbers are startling:
Only 17 states provide financial assistance to poor women seeking abortions; 14 of them do so under court order. Over 87% of the US counties do not have services even though 34% of all women ages 15-44 live in those counties. Over 31% of US metropolitan areas have no providers.
In consideration of International Women’s Day this Monday, March 8, please consider supporting through your time, money or effort the organizations that fight the uphill battle in conservative and rural areas to ensure that all women have access to quality reproductive health care and shelter from abuse from those who ought to love them.
The Washington Post today 
Recent Comments