The Intersectionality of Pro-Choice Politics
- Kyla Wheeler
- Sep 23, 2020
- 8 min read
Updated: Sep 25, 2020
So when we talk about reproductive rights, we have to first acknowledge that this is not just a women's issue. While reproductive rights are important for women (and people with uteri in general), there are many other factors that come into play when it comes to the accessibility of reproductive rights. And in order to understand this, we must first understand the concept of intersectionality.
Intersectionality is a theoretical concept coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a Black woman who graduated from UCLA Law School. She studied a 1976 court case in which Black women employees sued General Motors for seniority-based layoffs. The Black women argued that the company's policies were harmful to Black women specifically; the court ruled that they could either file for discrimination on the basis of race or gender, but not both. Crenshaw, however, proceeded to use this court case example to demonstrate why intersectionality matters. With that being said, intersectionality is a theoretical framework that takes into account the fact that when people come from multiple marginalized communities, they will inevitably experience the systemic oppressions the said communities are subjected to simultaneously. For example, the Black women in the court case experienced misogyny and racism simultaneously; both these systemic oppressions cannot be experienced "one at a time" because they exist as Black and women simultaneously.
This framework applies to the previous point when I said reproductive rights is not just a women's issue, but also a race issue, class issue, trans issue, etc.
As usual, I spend some parts of my day scrolling through Twitter. All of a sudden, I see this tweet:
And when I read this, I just remembered my mind being BLOWN. Sometimes you notice things but they're so normalized, that you don't even realize how messed up it is. If you think about the way capitalism has brainwashed us into thinking we should have to earn basic life-sustaining necessities, this becomes even more messed up. Capitalism allows poverty to become criminalized under the law, and allows vulnerable populations to be exploited under a vicious capitalist cycle for the two issues that produce the most money in the United States: poverty and incarceration. If you think about it, we're taught from a young age that stealing is wrong, and if you steal, you go to jail. But think about it this way: is stealing really wrong if a capitalist government puts you in a position where you make way too little, but basic necessities cost WAY too much? If baby food is so expensive to where it has to be locked behind a glass door in grocery stores, is it really wrong of poor mothers to steal food that will sustain their baby's life? Should the mother be going to jail because she "stole" food so that her baby could survive? Should her incarceration be funneling money into the police state? The truth is: no, because it's not really stealing. It's taking back what the capitalist government has stolen from YOU. All babies and mothers should have a right to food, but this is not the case when baby food and formula is locked behind a glass door for a whopping price of (but not limited to) $40.
Baby food is not the only thing that is basically restricted in grocery stores, because pregnancy tests, Plan-B pills, and other forms of contraception can also be found locked behind a glass case. And some of these things aren't even accessible in general because not all of them are sold over-the-counter, making it that much more inaccessible to those who don't have the healthcare to access these health resources. Again, it would not be immoral to "steal" health resources because the government has made healthcare inaccessible to the public. Healthcare is a human right and should not be accessible only to the rich (or anyone who is not cost-burdened by it), which demonstrates how the healthcare system acts as a business rather than a service to assist people.
This is also one of the many issues with "pro-life" rhetoric, because if abortion is such an issue, then why not make contraception affordable and accessible to those who can get pregnant in the first place? Also, why is there not "pro-life" supporters fighting to make baby food and baby formula more affordable and accessible to poor mothers? If "pro-life" supporters believe all life is sacred, then shouldn't they also be fighting to make sure babies have all the resources they need to thrive? It's because "pro-life" supporters ironically are not actually pro-life, but rather anti-choice or anti-abortion. One thing you will find with "pro-life" supporters is that they fight for the person carrying the baby to complete the pregnancy, but when the baby is born, the person who is now taking care of the baby and the baby are on their own. There is no regard for caregivers who may be poor or working-class, since "pro-life" supporters also ironically don't believe in allowing caregivers to receive government assistance because it's seen as "lazy". So if someone is forced by the government to carry their baby to term, and they are unable to afford basic necessities for the baby because the government refuses to provide it for them, this is a perfect representation of why reproductive rights is a class issue.
In addition to being a class issue, reproductive rights are also a race issue. Race and class justice are intertwined, so it is impossible to separate the two from reproductive justice. For example, Black/Indigenous/People of Color are less likely to receive optimal healthcare than white people, and it even differs interracially. For Black mothers specifically, the Black maternal mortality rate is very high and they are 243% more likely to die during childbirth. Despite what people think, this is not because Black women have some genetic predisposition to die during childbirth. These health disparities are actually due to social conditions; there remains a lot of medical racism and negligence in doctors when it comes to Black women patients because they do not receive the optimal care that white mothers do. Even across socioeconomic status and educational attainment, Black women still have the highest maternal mortality rate of any other race. Not only is the Black maternal mortality rate alarming, but the Black infant mortality rate is twice as high as the white infant mortality rate.
Often times, these racial health disparities are not taken into consideration by "pro-life" supporters. Reproductive justice is a race issue because reproductive health resources and the opportunity to safely deliver a baby is not provided to BIPOC (especially Black mothers) in the same way it's afforded to white people.
Another issue to take into account when it comes to intersectionality and pro-choice politics is age. Minors are in an especially difficult situation when it comes to reproductive justice, because in some states in the US, minors need parental consent to receive an abortion since they are still considered dependents. This can be especially hard for a minor because even if they do not want a baby for whatever reason, their reproductive health lies in the hands of their parents or guardians. Also, not all parents are supportive of their children getting an abortion, or their child's bodily autonomy in general. Some minors are also even more vulnerable if they live with abusive caregivers. Either way, a minor may feel like they have to resort to extensive lengths to try and get an abortion behind their caregivers' back, which can be more trouble than it's worth.
HBO Max's new movie Unpregnant (2020) does an excellent job of demonstrating why reproductive rights is an issue of accessibility for minors, and I would definitely recommend watching it if you get the chance.
The movie follows a young 17-year old girl named Veronica who takes a pregnancy test in her high school bathroom, only to find out she actually is pregnant. She does not want to keep the baby because she knows it's not the right decision for her, and she tries to look for a clinic so she can get an abortion. However, she lives in Missouri and she can only get an abortion with parental consent. She feels her parents will not agree with her decision, so she does not tell them. Instead, she calls her old friend Bailey to drive her to the nearest reproductive health clinic that does not require parental consent for an abortion—but is 996 miles away in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Haley Lu Richardson, who plays Veronica, delivers a powerful monologue in the film. "Why in the hell do you need parental consent to have an abortion, but not to literally BIRTH a human child?!" she exclaims. And she's not wrong.
It is also important to understand how trans rights are reproductive rights, as we need to steer away from gendered language in the conversations surrounding pro-choice politics. It's important to acknowledge that not all women have a vagina, and not all men have a penis. The immediate threat to this gender-inclusive truth is the fallacy of biological determinism, or the belief that your gender is assigned at birth based solely on your anatomy—and that your gender is set for life. This is very invalidating to trans and non-binary people, and this fallacy is a breeding ground for transphobia. For example, there are trans men who may have a vagina and may also need access to reproductive healthcare resources such as oral contraceptive pills, Plan-B pills, pregnancy tests, etc. But often times trans men and non-binary people are left out of the reproductive rights conversations due to the ingrained bioessentialism—or the belief that you must have a vagina to be a woman or a penis to be a man—in the pro-choice movement. While the pro-choice movement is necessary, it's undeniable that the movement also centers cisgender people, which inevitably leads to trans-exclusionary rhetoric. It is crucial to center the voices of trans and non-binary people in the pro-choice movement as well, as trans justice IS reproductive justice. So, it's VERY important to be aware of gendered language when discussing reproductive issues and keeping reproductive rhetoric gender neutral and gender-inclusive.
Last but definitely not least, reproductive justice goes hand-in-hand with disability justice. Similar to the point I made about how the pro-choice movement centers cisgender people, the movement also centers abled people as well. Lack of accessibility is a serious issue in the disabled community, and there remains a lot of ableism in healthcare. Often times, disabled people do not receive the proper accommodations they need when it comes to reproductive rights, which puts their health at risk in the healthcare system. Like BIPOC, disabled people are less likely to receive optimal health care than their abled counterparts—and this does not yet take into account the treatment of people who are BIPOC and disabled. In addition, disabled people are more likely to be coerced into healthcare procedures (i.e. being told they must have a C-section) when they are not even necessary due to ableism in healthcare; doctors do not properly accommodate to disabled people and see their disability as an "inconvenience" and may not do what is best for the disabled person, but rather what is easiest for the doctor. Disabled people are also subject to abuse in medical treatment, and doctors can also withhold important medical information that they would otherwise give to an abled person because they do not see disabled people as having bodily autonomy. Due to reproductive healthcare centering abled people, disabled people are often treated as an afterthought when their voices and presence are pivotal to reproductive justice.
In discussing the importance of intersectionality in pro-choice politics, it's important to recall that people can exist within multiple marginalized communities simultaneously. For example, people can exist at the intersections of being transgender and having a disability, or being BIPOC and poor, maybe being BIPOC and a minor and disabled, or even existing at all the intersections mentioned above. It is important to be aware of all the axes of oppression that exist in order to make reproductive justice as accessible as possible. Being pro-choice means viewing reproductive justice from an intersectional lens, which means taking into consideration how reproductive justice is racial justice, class justice, trans/non-binary justice, disability justice, etc. It's definitely something to work towards, but as Kimberlé Crenshaw says, liberation from these interlocking systems of oppression must start from the bottom-up.
For more information, feel free to check out these informative links below!
More on the Black Maternal Mortality Rate
More on Kimberlé Crenshaw's Concept of Intersectionality
More on Disability Justice as Reproductive Justice
Comments