In the wake of two rounds of racially-charged anti-abortion campaigns: “Black Children are an Endangered Species” and “The Most Dangerous Place for an African-American is in the Womb.” These campaigns are built around the fact that pregnant black women are more likely to have abortions than pregnant white women. The one getting attention at the moment, sent in by Laura E., is a set of billboards from That’s Abortion in the South Side of Chicago:
I’ve said this before, and it’s being said elsewhere, but I think it deserves to be said again, and strongly.
Many women have abortions because they cannot afford to raise a(nother) child. They would bring the fetus to term if only they weren’t all-but-crushed under the burdens of under-served neighborhoods, shitty public education, a dearth of jobs that pay a living wage, a criminal justice system that strips inner cities of husbands and fathers, a lack of health care, and stingy, penalizing, and humiliating social services (when they can get them). So telling black women that they are bad; telling them that they are killing their race alongside their babies, is twisting a knife that already penetrates deep in the black community.
Not to mention the fact that as soon as those poor women have children, they’re demonized for irresponsibly bringing babies into the world that they cannot support. It’s called a double bind; damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And no they cannot “wait until they’re in a better place financially” or “not have sex until they can afford to raise a child” because many, many women will never be in such a place in their entire lives. And they can’t just “practice responsible contraception” because half of all pregnancies are unintended, at least a third among even the most well-educated and resource-rich women. So pregnancies will and do happen, even to people who don’t want or can’t have a child.
If pro-life groups want to stop abortion, they need to stop accusing black women of moral bankruptcy and start putting those billboards up across from the Capital Building. What black women need isn’t an ethics lesson, they need resources. They need those very same people who tsk tsk them to stand up for them, to fight for a living wage, investments in their schools and communities, protection instead of criminalization, more available and better subsidized child care, and guaranteed parental leave benefits for all (it’s not a fantasy). If black women had those things, then they might feel like that had a choice to keep their baby, just as they have a choice to abort their fetus.
It’s not the parents who fail to care-about-the-children in America, it’s a government and it’s citizens that allow 1 in 5 to languish in poverty.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 130
Leslee Beldotti — April 8, 2011
An anthropology teacher I had years ago stated that at its core, the abortion issue isn't about fetuses - dead or alive. It's about controlling the reproductive rights of women. He went on to say that whoever controls the reproductive rights of women in a given society CONTROLS that society.
This ad campaign is just another example of this phenomenon.
Jessie — April 8, 2011
Lisa, I respect the fact that you're speaking out on behalf of an oppressed group. But it's important to keep in mind that we're talking about two forms of oppression here, not just one.
African Americans face significant economic and social obstacles, it's true. But that doesn't justify averting our eyes from the millions of innocent souls who are murdered every year under current abortion practices.
I think it's important to understand that the people you're indicting here aren't overtly racist or even ignorant of the many more subtle forms of racial discrimination. We simply believe that all human lives should be treated with dignity, and that poor socioeconomic conditions - terrible as they are - do not constitute an excuse for ending human life.
This is not an issue of oppression v. hegemony. This is an issue that requires weighing the rights of two oppressed groups.
Cassie — April 8, 2011
"What black women need isn’t an ethics lesson, they need resources." Agreed!!!
Lynn — April 8, 2011
I strongly disagree with Jessie. These billboards are racist. Especially when created by a group that is comprised of largely white people.
I will reiterate- that if prolife groups really want to decrease the number of abortions they should work to improve child care services, the education system, family planning services and contraceptive access. Those things will lower the abortion rate. No one wants to have an abortion, it is life circumstances that force someone to consider an abortion.
Lori A — April 8, 2011
Yes, yes, yes... BUT... sometimes poor women of color (like women of every socioeconomic class and every race) *just don't want kids*, and no amount of resources will change that (although- AHEM- better access to sex education and contraception could prevent the need for abortions in such instances). Not every woman has to be a mother. Freaking respect that, conservatives. And realize that if you're going to call yourself 'pro-life,' you have to give a shit about life outside of the womb.
Lori A — April 8, 2011
Oh, and is no one going to mention the fact that Obama's mother was white?
Whoops. Try again billboard jackasses (no, really, don't).
Marc — April 8, 2011
I'd also point out that by and large, the people who demonize black women for having children they can't support are not the same people as those agitating against abortion. Both groups may have committed the sin of being whiter and righter than this blog and its environs, but that doesn't make them the same people.
That said, black women are getting it from both sides here. As to the following sentence, called out by Cassie,
"What black women need isn’t an ethics lesson, they need resources."
I would humbly submit that they need both, as do almost any other people finding themselves lower than is pleasant on the socio-economic ladder. Black women do not get pregnant out of wedlock by drinking polluted water, it happens because they have had unprotected sex, just like with any other women. I see no reason society shouldn't be responsible for caring for the least of these while at the very same time, asking them to reduce risky behavior. Why are those two things set against each other?
Nijuro — April 8, 2011
Wasn't Obama's mother white?
Nick H — April 8, 2011
While I completely agree that resources, rather than an ethics lesson, would go much farther to helping impoverished black women, I think that argument has obvious limitations in a debate on abortion. Most people oppose abortion for religious reasons, in particular because they are devout Catholics or fundamentalist Protestants. These are religious faiths that prioritize spiritual health over anything that can be achieved in our current existence. The logic of Christianity biases adherents toward a focus on the next life. Making arguments based around practical solutions to poverty isn't going to be particularly compelling to them, because in the Bible poverty is not something that is supposed to be dealt with in this world - indeed poverty is seen as spiritually cleansing.
When you genuinely believe that earthly existence is just a prelude to a supernatural afterlife you tend to become less concerned with improving earthly conditions. It is more important to ensure that your society is run according to the will of God, even if the practical results are back alley abortions and cycles of poverty and crime.
pushpins — April 8, 2011
Every 21 minutes our next possible Hitler is aborted.
Marianne — April 8, 2011
I appreciate your commentary. However, I think it's also important to note that there are more than two choices when it comes to unintended pregnancy. The choice can be made to place the child for adoption as well as to raise her/him or to have an abortion.
What We Missed — April 8, 2011
[...] Professor Lisa Wade at Sociological Images has a few things to say about racialized anti-abortion billboards, and boy does she say them. [...]
What We Missed — April 8, 2011
[...] Professor Lisa Wade at Sociological Images has a few things to say about racialized anti-abortion billboards, and boy does she say them. [...]
m — April 8, 2011
To lower the level a bit, one can also question the logic of that board. It's not only fetuses that could become leaders after all: every single sperm lost to masturbation or contraceptives could have been as well, as could every single egg in the menstural cycles that went without a pregnancy. If you can't force child bearing in those cases, it makes no sense to do it when it comes to unwanted pregnancy.
AlgebraAB — April 8, 2011
A few thoughts ...
First of all, it is racist to suggest that any anti-abortion campaign aimed at African-Americans is managed or controlled by whites. According to its website, two (out of four) of LifeAlways' board members are African-American - Pastor Derek McCoy and Pastor Stephen Broden. There is a very deep vein of social conservatism within traditional African-American Christian churches. This is true not just with regards to abortion but also with issues such as gay marriage. So the implication that these campaigns are all ideologically led by whites is really an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In essence, it is saying that any African-Americans who identify with social conservatism or conservative Christianity aren't "real" blacks - they must be manipulated or somehow under the sway of white Christians. It's akin to how some feminists argue that any woman who doesn't adhere to their views must be brainwashed by patriarchy. Or, how some socialists argue that any exploited workers who don't identify with class conflict must be subject to "false consciousness" - i.e. they are brainwashed by the capitalist class. It is ad hoc reasoning and it denies minority groups agency - either you identify with political liberalism or you're a zombie.
Also, none of the definitions for "personhood" that I've read on this page are convincing. I say that as someone who generally supports legalized abortion (because I see no viable alternative at the moment). They're all ridiculously reductionist. You can only accept these absurd justifications for why a fetus doesn't hold personhood (i.e. it doesn't breathe independently) if you throw out some 5,000 years of human discourse, from a myriad of different perspectives, that all suggest that human society values life (especially human life) for reasons that are infinitely more complex than what is being suggested here. There's too much to go into but I will make two points. First, even the mere potentiality of life is in itself highly valued by many human societies. Secondly, the argument that says that fetuses don't hold personhood because they are dependent on another body and are not viable outside of the womb is only justifiable if you're definition of "dependency" is strictly tied to interconnecting biological systems as with a fetus and its mother. *All* human children are to one degree or another "dependent" on others. Practically all children in pre-industrial societies that don't have industrial production of formula or processed baby foods are specifically dependent on female bodies for nourishment and survival. What I see here is a lot of after-the-fact reasoning. When I hear definitions like the one about independent breathing, I read them not as "I sincerely believe that the point at which a human begins breathing independently is a critical threshold in giving human life it's value." I read it as "Where can I draw a line of demarcation between fetuses and infants that will allow me to provide a moral justification for abortion without creating ethical quandaries in other contexts?" I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, I hate putting words in other people's mouths but that is the conclusion I have come to after seeing this debate from multiple perspectives.
More and more I think a lot of these debates are just proxies for the "real" struggle which is simmering under the surface. It seems to me that a lot of people are really uncomfortable with (a) the asymmetric burden that human biology by necessity places on women with regard to pregnancy and (b) the high value that society places on motherhood and the traditional family, and all that comes with that. The issue is not so much freedom of choice to not be a mother or to not value familial structures, which is already available in the West, but there is a struggle going on to overturn the way these values are "normalized" and instead push for a postmodern, relativist (or perspectivalist, if you prefer) standard.
This is why I think the pro-choice movement is far more racist than the pro-life movement. The pro-choice movement portrays the struggle as stodgy, white, U.S.-based Christian conservatives vs. the rest of the globe (especially poor, minority women). The reality is that there are considerable socially conservative and anti-abortion movements all over the world among the poor and non-whites (witness Islam, Buddhism, African-American churches, Roman Catholicism in Latin America, even some secular nationalists and their takes on abortion). In contrast, the ideological heart of the pro-choice movement is in the First World, mostly among whites, and mostly among relatively well-educated and well-off (in a global perspective) women and LGBT-identifying individuals. They use economic arguments regarding poverty and development to rally poor and non-white women to their side. However, if they were upfront about their relativist standards they would not be able to attract the support they do. Most women in the Third World or in the ghetto are struggling to keep their families intact, in the face of economic desperation that is tearing them apart, they're not trying to argue that the family is an oppressive social structure, in many cases it is the only stable social structure they know. Similarly, most poor women are trying to get society to value mothers and their role MORE, not putting forward that "motherhood is gross" or that society should value "sluts" more than traditionally feminine women (arguments I've seen in the comments section of this blog, these statements are dripping with white, First World privilege). So I see both camps as using the poor and non-white as cannon fodder in their battles but the pro-choice camp is much more disingenuous about how it rallies support among the oppressed.
DG — April 8, 2011
One word: Freakonomics. Every 21 seconds, a probable delinquent, hooligan, or thug is aborted.
http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/
Abortion prevents unwanted children with a high risk of delinquency and criminality from being born, lowering the future crime rate.
Of course, if you want disaffected, angry, bleak, violent kids to turn into military cannon fodder, it makes perfect sense to criminalize abortions.
Deborrah Cooper — April 9, 2011
Abortion is the best thing since sliced bread! ANY WOMAN THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO OR INTEREST IN RAISING A CHILD SHOULD GET ONE. Men complain about abortions and want to castigate and demonize women for getting one only because they want to place themselves in the position of controlling female reproduction.
A developing fetus is a total parasite. They cannot grow and develop without drawing nutrients from the mother's body, usually to her detriment in some way.
I say women should stop having children. Period.
Trix — April 9, 2011
It's interesting that the OP and the comments have not mentioned the glaring fact that the chances of someone from a poverty-line upbringing in the US, particularly if they are a minority, and even more particularly if they are female (so far), are vanishingly-small to non-existent.
There is this amazing myth that in America that "anyone can grow up to be President". If you're not in the million-dollar-earnings bracket, forget it. There is a reason they invented the term "economic oppression".
I still continue to be amazed at the tenacity of this myth in the US consciousness, even after the economic meltdown and rising inequity there.
Hands Off My Uterus | feministadventures — April 9, 2011
[...] are rarely a selfish act committed by an irresponsible, life-smothering, promiscuous female minority (as the GOP would have you believe), but a difficult and life-changing decision made by women for a [...]
hahayourefunny — April 9, 2011
[...] From Sociological Images, a discussion on the racialized abortion campaigns: Many women have abortions because they cannot afford to raise a(nother) child. They would bring the fetus to term if only they weren’t all-but-crushed under the burdens of under-served neighborhoods, shitty public education, a dearth of jobs that pay a living wage, a criminal justice system that strips inner cities of husbands and fathers, a lack of health care, and stingy, penalizing, and humiliating social services (when they can get them)…Not to mention the fact that as soon as those poor women have children, they’re demonized for irresponsibly bringing babies into the world that they cannot support [...]
The most dangerous place… « Gynomite! — April 10, 2011
[...] read the rest, it’s good food for thought no matter how you feel about abortion. LikeBe the first [...]
DW — April 10, 2011
Hey, ALEGEBRAAB, I have a suggestion for you:
DON"T have an abortion. Just don't tell me what I should do, mkay?
No one has to present an argument for personhood that YOU can believe or understand. I don't really give a shit about what you do or think about the ethical conundrum of abortion. Not now, not ever. And your tl:dr bullshit rant is just that - bullshit.
Sarah — April 11, 2011
"a criminal justice system that strips inner cities of husbands and fathers"
^This sentance is so incredibly insane to me. So it is because of our justice system that husbands and fathers are being arrested?? How about this idea: Don't break the law and our insane, crazy, sadistic justice system won't have to arrest you?
A side note: My mother and father had 8 children and supported us off my father's salary as a high school teacher. Being poor isn't justification for killing innocent lives. I'm now attending a university and will, hopefully, be entering medical school where I will learn how to save lives. I'm incredibly grateful (and I'd like to think that some of the lives I will be saving will be grateful as well) that my mother didn't kill me simply because she didn't have any money.
Minnie — May 30, 2011
I know I'm late with this. As a 19 year old black female, I endured horrible sex education. It consisted of girls and boys being divided into groups and us tracing reproductive organs. That was 4th grade. Because of my township's budget cuts, my younger cousin did not even go through 4th grade sex ed. I don't know when he'll get it, but I doubt it will be effective. At the age of 12, I knew plenty of girls who had lost their virginity already and or were pregnant.
The reason why I am commenting, is that some of the reasons why there are so many unwanted pregnancies is because of the lack of competent sex education in poor areas. Out of my senior graduating class, I know at least 20 or more girls who are expecting or already have a child. What's worst is there are girls I know who abuse their right to an abortion. I have friends who purposely have unprotected sex and get abortions every time they fall pregnant. It makes me concerned for a young woman's health when she's had more than two abortions. It makes me wonder if this would've been avoided it we were given proper sex education.
sunny — May 30, 2011
@Minnie: I'm saddened to hear about your experience - comprehensive, age-appropriate sex ed is so important to learn. There'd be a lot less prayer in schools if kids knew about their bodies - how pregnancy happens and how to prevent sti's.
Education is key! Along with contraceptive access, this is a place for those on all ends of the spectrum to come together and work on. As a pro-choice woman, I'm always puzzled by those who take the time to march for 'pro-life' publicity, but don't spend time working to prevent unwanted pregnancies (like working to ensure sex ed in schools and contraceptive access.)
Pro-creating is a two-person job, so if men don't want to have a baby, they need to be responsible too.
besty — June 16, 2011
So nice to see big thinkers in the group - people who understand how policies effect EVERY scenario - not just their specific case. Thanks to everyone who's intelligent AND compassionate. A big chunk of gratitude to all the active pro-choice people out there.
dn — December 4, 2011
as one who has had an abortion for these purposes i think that it is very important to realize that not all of us who have had these procedures use it as birth control, nor do some of us feel that the unborn child is a blood sucking parasite that needs to be exterminated. Women (that have any type of feelings) who have this done are already dealing with very difficult and sensitive decisions and do not need to be constantly reminded of the could of would of should of aspects of the situation. Ladies-ABORTIONS ARE NOT BIRTH CONTROL. Men- USE CONDOMS ALWAYS. A previous commentor suggested better education and they are right. Parents- MAKE BIRTH CONTROL AN MUST TO YOUR DAUGHTERS and CONDOMS A MUST TOYOUR SONS. Not only does better education, proper prevenative care, and parental guidance of making healthy sexual choices help people well into adulthood. keeping a child simply because they might be the next president or doctor or nobel prize winner is ridiculous. if one cannot support the child, has other issues in their lives that are detrimental to the baby's safety ( chronic drug addiction, severe mental health issues, extremely abusive relationships, being given to the social service system) then maybe for once someone is thinking about the baby's safety. dont penalize some of us who actually make better judgement calls by insulting our intelligence and decison making skills with stupid posters who are supported by the same people who also oppose birth control.
Sara Lin Starred It: 2013-04-02 (Beautiful Belly Edition) | saralinwilde — April 2, 2013
[...] thoughts on race-specific pro-life ads and how they backfire by shaming impoverished minority women who haven’t got the resources to even face a meaningful choice about abortion. And then, as [...]