Category Archives: Eugenics

In this op-ed, Anja Herrman explores why disabled people should be centered in the fight for reproductive rights.

While my generation has, up until now, always had the right to a legal abortion, not all of us were able to exercise it. On June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to legislate away abortion rights. But for disabled people like me, Roe was never enough, as the government has long legislated our reproductive health away. As many of us now rally for the restoration of our rights, we must center the voices of disabled people. Were still fighting for the kind of freedom that most Americans take for granted.

The United States has a long history of trying to control people with disabilities. In the early 1900s, supporters of the eugenics movement advocated for the forced sterilization of anyone they believed to be unfit in order to preserve good bloodlines. Who was fit or unfit? Largely, anyone who wasnt a wealthy, white, nondisabled person. The eugenics movement was supported (even encouraged!) by the U.S. government. In 1927, the Court decided in Buck v. Bell that the government was within their rights to sterilize people declared disabled, because three generations of imbeciles are enough. This abhorrent repudiation of disabled people's humanity is one of the most shameful in our countrys history but its far from over. A recent report by the National Womens Law Center found that 31 states (and Washington DC) explicitly allow the forced sterilization of disabled people. Laws like these destroy the idea that disabled people should be able to make these choices for ourselves and instead allow others to manipulate our bodies.

Though Im young, I have always seen parenting in my future, but this possibility may be denied to me because of my disability. In the U.S., a parents disability is sometimes considered in determining custody cases. When he was a judge on the DC Court of Appeals, now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh decided in Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia that DCs statute allowing the principality to forcibly perform an abortion on an intellectually disabled individual was constitutional, thus denying a disabled woman a chance at being a mother. Tarlow shows how the fight against Roe has never been about babies, but about control. Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe.

This isnt to say that a disabled person cant also be forced to become a parent. Disabled people are much more vulnerable to sexual assault than their nondisabled peers. Now, in a post-Roe world, this means that I could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy resulting from assault to term.

As we rally around abortion rights, its crucial that we center disabled people to achieve real justice. To truly accept and include disabled people like me, there needs to be a recognition that abortion isnt the only thing we need to have true control over our reproductive lives. Instead of letting me make my own reproductive health choices, lawmakers have become far too comfortable with policing bodies like mine.

As a disabled teen, I deserve to be able to make choices about my body and my future. Im asking pro-choice advocates to see the value of including disability in our fight for change. If disabled people dont get a seat at the table, then future generations wont truly have the right to choose. Its time to get the government out of disabled peoples uteruses once and for all.

Let us slide into your DMs. Sign up for the Teen Vogue daily email.

Want more from Teen Vogue? Check this out:

Read the original post:

Disabled People Never Had Full Autonomy Over Our Reproductive Rights - Teen Vogue

The Jazz Age was flourishing, thanks in part to new Prohibition laws. In Seattle, the so-called Jackson Street nightclub and speakeasy scene took off, spreading from Pioneer Square to the Central District and eventually birthing more than a generation of great music and musicians. But while the races exuberantly mixed in the after-midnight hours at clubs like the Black and Tan, nationally and locally reactionary racial politics took hold. By day, the segregating redlines in the city were steadfast and racist covenants spread.

Politically, the white middle class yearned for normalcy, which brought a sequence of conservative Republican presidents, including Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover, all of whom carried Washington state. But normalcy for many people meant a return to aggressive white supremacy. In some cases, Washington led the way.

The Ku Klux Klan revived in the 20s. Once mostly limited to the South, it found new enthusiasts in the white middle class of the far West and Midwest. The KKK took over towns and state houses, including for a time Oregons. Anti-Black, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-modernity, theKlan became a powerful force that paraded openly in the streets and rallied tens of thousands of people to witness late-night cross-burnings in places like Issaquah, Yakima and Renton.Some events attracted 30,000 or more people.

Seattle author Timothy Egan has written a book about the 1920s Klan revival, A Fever in the Heartland, due out next spring. Some five million Americans joined the 1920s KKK. In 1924, the Democratic delegations from Washington, Oregon and Idaho together unanimously opposed a plank in the partys platform that would repudiate Klan violence.

New anti-immigration laws targeting Asians were passed to keep America white. The Northwest had been founded on race-based policies that impacted who could settle here and who could homestead. In 1921, the Washington Legislaturepassed the first law since statehood aimed at cracking down on Japanese immigrants by revoking their right to lease or rent land. A Washington Congressman, Albert Johnson, shepherded a bill through Congress, the Immigration Act of 1924, that essentially halted all Asian immigration. Johnson called it a bulwark against alien blood. These kinds of bills had strong support from both the KKK and the general public.

The year of the immigration act also saw the election of a conservative Republican governor in Washington, Roland Hartley, an Everett politician and timberman who broke with the progressive wing of the GOP. Historian Dave M. Buerge has written, The 1924 campaign was a particularly grotesque one in Washington politics, with the Ku Klux Klan fomenting hatred against blacks, foreigners, Jews, and Catholics. Government intervention in private life during the war had fostered a backlash.

Hartley capitalized. He was anti-labor, anti-tax and anti-government when he couldnt control it with his autocratic ways. He slashed funding for the state highway department and for public schools, and he almost drove the University of Washington into the ground by cutting its budgets and seizing control of its board of regents. He bullied and name-called his enemies, though Im not sure anyone today would be insulted by being called a pusillanimous blatherskite.

Not only was Washington a leader in opposing nonwhite immigration and hounding people of color with legal restrictions and burning crosses, it was also an early adopter in 1909 of eugenics laws which took choice away from some Americans by installing a system of involuntary sterilizations. In 1921, the state Legislature tookan even harsher stand against the unfit with a broadened list of who could be forcibly sterilized, including the feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates, and sexual perverts. Such laws received U.S. Supreme Court sanction under the Buck v. Bell decision of 1927 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously declared that three generations of imbeciles is enough to justify sterilizing women as it turned out,mostly poor Black women. Nearly 700 Washingtonians were sterilized under state law until the practice ended here in the 1940s. More than 2,600 in Oregon were sterilized until the early 1980s.

Read this article:

The rise of reactionaries in the wake of the 1918 flu pandemic - Crosscut

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing safe access to abortion nationwide. Many states will drastically limit access or even ban abortion entirely. Across the U.S., restricting and/or denying access to abortion services will have a disproportionate impact on poor women, girls, and transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) people who are more likely to be Black, Indigenous, or people of color (BIPOC).

We know that this decision will have terrible consequences for our country beyond abortion access. This decision erodes privacy rights. It will increase barriers for people needing abortion services, especially those at the intersections of racism, sexism, and transphobia. Racism, transphobia, and misogyny are intertwined public health crises. Unless we push back, they will result in unacceptable long-term health effects.

While abortion in Washington remains legal despite todays Supreme Court ruling, the Seattle Office for Civil rights is reviewing how we can strengthen protections for those who choose to terminate their pregnancies. We know that access to abortion is necessary and that true access includes freedom from discrimination and retaliation.

There are historical connections between the modern reproductive rights movement and control over the reproductive health and function of many different communities. Its critical to understand what reproductive rights are, its history, and how a more inclusive framework known as reproductive justice strives to achieve bodily autonomy across all races and genders.

What we understand to be the reproductive rights movement today began to actively take shape in the early 20th century, focusing first on birth control access.

Margaret Sanger was a reproductive rights pioneer of the early 20th century. She was a public health nurse who opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York in 1916. Despite being a visionary for womens rights at the time, Sangers contributions are marred by racism. She gave her public support to eugenics. Sangers views, however, were not unique.

Eugenics is a scientifically inaccurate theory that asserts humans can be improved through selective breeding, justifying the elimination of people considered to be genetically inferior. The American eugenics movement began in the late 1800s and was rooted in racism, misogyny, classism, and ableism.

Eugenics as a theory and medical philosophy was popular across the political spectrum of the late 19th and early 20th century. In fact, a key factor in the first anti-abortion arguments of the 19th century was that too many white American-born women were ending their pregnancies, opening the door for the country to be overrun by fertile foreigners. Doctors of that time also argued that abortions were likely to be fatal and drive women to insanity. Historians, however, note that the procedure was still safer at that time than childbirth.

Even as recently as 2020, a nurse working at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Georgia came forward with shocking accounts of medical abuse. She claimed that involuntary hysterectomies were performed on detained immigrant women. As horrific and infuriating as these allegations are, its important to note that the U.S has previously engaged in forced sterilization campaigns against the poor, disabled, and communities of color. These campaigns were substantiated by eugenics and publicly supported by many.

Since the court ruling on Roe v. Wade in 1973, the reproductive rights movement has focused extensively on preserving the legal right to abortion while putting less emphasis on other needs, including addressing the harms of medical racism like forced sterilization, abortion access, and other healthcare needs for women, girls, and TGNC people impacted by the reproductive rights framework.

SisterSong, a national collective centered on reproductive health for women of color and transgender people, defines Reproductive Justice as a human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, to have children or not have children, and to parent the children they have in safe and sustainable communities.

Reproductive Justice was first coined in the summer of 1994 by a group of Black women in Chicago. They recognized that the womens rights movement in the U.S., led by white women, used a much too narrow scope for reproductive rights for all women. Reproductive Justice combines reproductive rights and social justice. It is rooted in an internationally recognized human rights framework created by the United Nations. This is different than the mainstream reproductive rights movement that is rooted in a pro-choice framework, or an individuals constitutional right to privacy.

A major distinction between reproductive rights advocacy and reproductive justice is the notion between access and choice. For example, while pro-choice advocates are focused on legalizing abortion as an individual choice, that is not enough to address systemic realities that many poor women, BIPOC women, and TGNC people face. There are still cost prohibitive barriers and limited or no access to providers that impede the exercise of a meaningful choice.

While those within both movements view abortion access as critical, there is more to reproductive health and autonomy than abortion access. For example, BIPOC women and other marginalized people may also have difficulty accessing contraception, comprehensive sex education, STI prevention and care, alternative birth options, adequate prenatal care, livable wages, and more.

Reproductive Justice also addresses the absence of transgender people and other gender diverse communities in mainstream conversations around reproductive rights; for example, transgender men or non-binary people able to give birth. Historic strategies from the reproductive rights movement were not equipped to address these needs.

Positive Womens Network (PWN) believes reproductive justice can be realized when people of all genders have theeconomic, social, and politicalpower necessary to make healthy decisions about their bodies, reproductive needs, and sexualities without threat of violence, coercion, stigma, or discrimination.

As mentioned in an earlier post, TGNC people face astounding barriers socially and economically. Further, they are targets of interpersonal and institution violence with increasing exposure if we consider TGNC folks who hold multiple identities including those who are BIPOC, immigrants, sex workers, or living with disabilities.Therefore, if we are to center those most impacted, the needs of TGNC people must be embedded into reproductive justice advocacy.

The Supreme Courts decision today will cause significant harm to all communities, but most egregiously in communities where race and gender intersect. Abortion access is a critical medical intervention to reach liberation. By analyzing the history of the reproductive rights movement in the U.S., its clear that legal abortion access has far-reaching implications as a critical matter beyond privacy rights. When the scope is only narrowly framed as pro-choice and reproductive rights, we sacrifice the dignity and bodily autonomy of communities of color and poor people. This is rooted in our countrys legacy of anti-Black racism, Indigenous erasure, transphobia, and misogyny. Reproductive justice brings a principled lens that refocuses on quality of life that is affirming, uplifting, and supportive of healthy Black and Brown communities.

View post:

Abortion access and reproductive justice - Civil Rights Now - Seattle.gov

By Akilah JohnsonThe Washington Post

MONTGOMERY, Ala.Nailah Nicolas stood in the late-afternoon Southern sun at a park dedicated to three enslaved Black women who suffered torturous experiments to advance the field of gynecology.

That day, hanging heavy in the air surrounding the soaring steel monuments to Anarcha, Lucy and Betsey was the Supreme Courts decision in an abortion case that could overturn Roe v. Wade, which at that point had not yet arrived.

Because of mistreatment and neglect of Black women by the medical profession, and society more broadly, the courts decision adds a layer of complexity to the continued struggle for equity in gynecologic and obstetric services and to the divergent views on abortion.

Abortion care is opposed by some for religious reasons or regarded as a form of genocide, while others say overturning Roe would mark the latest effort to take away what generations of Black women have seldom had: control of their own bodies.

Nicolas fought for Black liberation as a college student in the late 1960s. As the years progressed, she recognized how the malignant forces of racism, sexism and classism intertwine in Black womens battle for agency over their bodies.

People are also reading

She shudders to think of reverting to the secretive, shame-filled world she lived in before birth control pills were available to unmarried women and abortion was legalized nationwide in 1973, the year after she graduated from the University of California at Los Angeles. It was a time when sex, pregnancy, abortion reproductive health in general were in the shadows, even as hospitals dedicated entire wards to women suffering from complications of abortion because they did not have access to safe procedures.

They never talked to us younger folks about it, Nicolas, 71, said. You almost had to be sneaky and listen to grown folk talk to grown folks.

Nicolas became an activist, and alongside others, fought for more than the right to choose; they fought for the right to control what happens to their bodies, including having children on their terms and raising them in a safe and secure world that provides for the basic needs of parent and child.

She became a public school teacher as part of her mission and began to feel a broader cultural shift in the late 1970s when the curriculum expanded to fact-based lessons on reproduction, shifting away from moral deliberations.

No storks. Medical books, Nicolas said.

That Sunday at the Mothers of Gynecology Monument Park was a day of reflection on the progress achieved in overcoming the burdens and barriers Black women face in accessing not just abortions but also prenatal care and safe births and the work still to be done.

The United States faces an ever-growing maternal health crisis that is especially deadly for Black women, who, along with Native American women, live shorter lives than many other Americans. Pregnancy and childbirth are among the leading causes of death of all teenage girls and women 15 to 44 years old, and Black women are three times as likely to die as a result of pregnancy as white women.

Nearly 2 out of 3 maternal deaths are preventable, research shows.

For the women such as Alexis King who gathered at the park, medical racism and the disparities in gynecological care remain all too present. King struggled for eight years to find the cause of excruciating pelvic pain, mood swings, irregular menstrual cycle and excessive facial hair.

Her symptoms started immediately after giving birth to her second daughter in 2008. The 39-year-old had a tubal ligation and wondered if she was experiencing complications. One day, she doubled over with what felt like labor pains and was rushed to the emergency room, where she learned there was blood in her pelvic floor from a ruptured ovarian cyst.

Her doctor was blas about the whole situation, she said, prescribing birth control pills to regulate her period.

She never took what I was saying serious, said King, a medical billing specialist from Birmingham. It was traumatic.

It wasnt until she switched doctors that King was diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome, a hormonal disorder that causes the ovaries to develop fluid-filled sacs.

The new doctor performed two procedures that remove tissue from the uterus to help alleviate heavy bleeding, including a dilation and curettage the same procedure used during surgical abortions and endometrial ablation.

The specter of the courts decision worries me for my girls, King said. Them being limited in what they can do and what resources they might need is worrisome. We never know what life will bring.

The Mothers of Gynecology Monument Park, a place of proud defiance and serene restoration, sits on the More Up campus, the future site of a conference center and resource museum.

We overcome by the words of our what? Testimony, Michelle Browder, the artist and creator of the park, told the crowd gathered at the monument.

Betsey stands 12 feet tall and wears speculums in her crown. Her pregnant form is made of discarded metal objects, much like Lucy (9 feet) and Anarcha, who has a gaping hole through the midsection of her 15-foot metal figure.

Less than a mile away, J. Marion Sims, the physician known as the father of modern gynecology, conducted surgeries without anesthesia on the three women and about seven other enslaved Black women in the 1840s. He was credited with curing whats known as a vesicovaginal fistula a hole that forms between the bladder and vagina after childbirth, cancer or surgery, causing incontinence though his legacy in recent years has been scrutinized by scholars and debunked.

Browder urged the crowd to step into a small guard shack, a cathartic space decorated to rival the relaxation room at any spa, and record stories of the care received from the medical system.

This is not just a piece of art, she said. Its a healing. Its history.

Maternal health is informed by an accumulation of life events that start long before pregnancy begins, said Kanika Harris, director of maternal and child health at the Black Womens Health Imperative, which works to improve the health and wellness of Black women and girls.

This is about how you show up to pregnancy, she said.

The shorter life spans of Black women years taken by higher rates of maternal mortality reflect hurdles piled one on top of another in a society where poverty and pollution often are concentrated in redlined neighborhoods but not affordable housing, grocery stores or reliable internet.

Black women confront racist stereotypes lascivious, aggressive, welfare queen that reduce them to caricatures, which affects their physical well-being and the medical care they receive. Health-care providers are more likely to dismiss Black pain and to negatively describe Black patients in electronic health records, studies have reported. And researchers have found that the unrelenting stress caused by racism wears the body down, aging it prematurely.

The end of legal access to abortion nationwide will absolutely exacerbate this crisis, said Rachel Villanueva, an obstetrician-gynecologist in New York and president of the National Medical Association, the nations largest and oldest national organization representing African American physicians.

We already have a situation where women lack access, Villanueva said. States that did not have Medicaid expansion have some of the worst maternal outcomes.

But there also can be financial barriers in states where Medicaid covers abortions. Thats especially true if a woman earns too much to qualify for the public health insurance program but not enough to afford the cost of an abortion, as one woman explained to University of California at San Francisco researchers who published a study last month examining how the enduring legacy of racism affects Black womens access to and experiences with abortion care.

Researchers interviewed 23 Black women between the ages of 21 and 46 who had abortions. Most were parents living in the Bay Area. The report described a complex web of painful injustices that affected the womens experiences with pregnancy, abortion and parenting.

About 18% of U.S. pregnancies end with an induced abortion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports. In 2019, more than one-third of abortion patients were Black women, whose rate of abortions was more than three times that of white women, according to federal figures, which did not include California, Maryland and New Hampshire.

Asking patients if theyve ever been pregnant and the outcome of that pregnancy is part of understanding someones medical history, Villanueva said.

Its the same as asking when your last Pap smear was . . . not a matter of judgment, said Villanueva, who like other reproductive health experts, worries that what they regard as a routine part of the doctor-patient conversation abortion could become increasingly fraught, deepening mistrust of the medical system amid the churning landscape of state reproductive politics, which, in some cases, would lead to punishing providers and delaying care.

The narrative that a lot of groups like to dictate is: People are careless. Theyre just having sex. They have an abortion because theyre indiscriminate in what they do, she said. We know thats not the case.

Thats the same argument Kings 16-year-old daughter, Amarie King, introduced in history class recently when the conversation turned to the imminent ruling on abortion rights.

Like I was telling them: You dont know why she ended up pregnant and why she doesnt want to keep the baby. People get raped all the time. Incest. It could be financial reasons, she said. Its not always what you think it is.

Just like the reason she started taking birth control: to help mitigate severe cramps and heavy bleeding that accompanied her menses.

Polls show relatively few people have absolutist views on abortion rights, believing abortion should be completely illegal or legal no exceptions. There are, however, certain situations in which the consensus is clear, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center: when a pregnancy threatens someones life or health.

Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a Black conservative think tank known by the acronym CURE, is among the 8% identified by Pew for whom there is no middle ground.

We as a society need to explore much deeper how killing your offspring became health care, said Parker, who sees the abortion debate as a distraction from the economic and social barriers that disproportionately keep Black people from getting medical care.

Parker said she believes there should be a total ban on abortions regardless of the circumstances.

Situational ethics should not drive national policy, she said.

A recent CURE report said the higher rate of abortion among Black women stems from predatory practices of an abortion industry that devalues Black lives. If our goal is to improve access to beneficial healthcare for Black communities, abortion is not the way, the think tanks report says.

Like Parker, Louisiana state Sen. Katrina R. Jackson, a Democrat who is a member of the legislatures womens and Black caucuses, said she doesnt believe outlawing abortion threatens the medical care Black women receive, including the ability to have candid conversations about previous abortions.

I cant subscribe to abortion being health care, said Jackson, who recently sponsored legislation to increase penalties for providers of abortion under the states trigger laws. Im not willing to state that abortion is some sort of remedy. That would be putting Band-Aids where we need to be putting stitches.

To truly improve health care for African American women and girls, research dollars should be spent determining why there are higher rates of diabetes, preeclampsia and fibroids in the Black community, Jackson said. And more should be invested in removing barriers to health care such as improving transit systems and expanding access to contraceptives and sex education, and ensuring Black women receive respectful care, Jackson added.

Instead of focusing on providing funding and researching and addressing the issue of Black maternal health, people want to tell Black women abortion is whats going to keep you healthy, said Jackson, who told NBC News that abortion was modern-day genocide in 2019.

That year, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in an opinion that the eugenics movement opened the door for abortion rights. Social scientists have discredited eugenics, which was popular in the early 20th century, as a pseudoscience obsessed with the genetic fitness of white Americans.

It was an argument also found in the footnotes of the leaked draft decision overturning Roe in which Justice Samuel Alito wrote, Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population.

Historians of the eugenics and abortion movements have called this argument a deeply flawed, willful distortion of history. Rana A. Hogarth, an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies the medical and scientific constructions of race during slavery and beyond, said it was extreme cherry-picking.

Abortion is a personal choice, not the state intervening and being like, Were going to forcibly sterilize you, which was a basic concept of eugenicists, Hogarth said.

It is a history with deep roots in Montgomery.

It was here in the 1970s that two young girls Minnie and Mary Alice Relf, who were 12 and 14 sued the federal government, exposing the widespread practice of the involuntary and coerced sterilization of thousands of Black, Native American, Puerto Rican and poor white women. Their mother was illiterate and signed with an X on a piece of paper she thought was authorizing her daughters to get birth control. They were surgically sterilized instead.

Standing before The Mothers of Gynecology and a panel that honors the Relf sisters, Joia Crear-Perry, an obstetrician-gynecologist and founder of the National Birth Equity Collaborative, a nonprofit group dedicated to eliminating racial inequities in birth outcomes, told the crowd: People who are the descendants of the enslaved should never want anyone controlling our bodies. No matter your gender. No matter your race.

As a medical student at Louisiana State University in the mid-1990s, she was taught race-based medicine. One embryology professor told students there were three races Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid as he taught about skin types. She was tested on the different pelvic shapes of Black, white and Asian women. And during training, Crear-Perry was taught that Black people had a different pain tolerance, a myth Sims propagated with his surgeries.

So the physicians that you know that went to school in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, where Im from. . . . We were taught that by professors, she said. I had to unlearn that for myself.

Crear-Perrys story was top of mind as Nicolas and her daughter drove home that night. Her daughter brought up how Nicolas received neither anesthesia nor pain medication in 1991 when a doctor performed a biopsy of a uterine fibroid. Maybe, she wondered, he believed the myth about Black peoples pain. And now, Nicolas wondered about that, too.

Read more:

In abortion debate, echoes of another battle: Reproductive rights for Black women - Richmond Times-Dispatch

As with so many aspects of the culture wars, the American debate over abortion seems to spend little time considering what policies will actually do to the people at whom theyre aimed.

Proponents of restrictions or outright bans believe theyre fighting to save unborn lives. But while the question of when an unborn fetus becomes a person is more a question of faith than science, those restrictions can have profound impacts on many who are undeniably people.

Of course, the people who will be most profoundly affected will be women and families who dont or barely have the money to leave the state for an abortion in the likely event that Ohio severely restricts or bans the procedure after Roe v Wade is overturned.

So it seems important to see what data can say about who these women are and what restricting their ability to end unwanted pregnancies means for Ohio and the rest of the country.

Each year, the Ohio Department of health compiles abortion statistics in the state, giving a partial picture of who is getting them.

One striking fact is how many fewer women from all backgrounds are terminating their pregnancies. The number has plummeted from just under 45,000 in 1977, the first year for which the state published the statistics, to around 20,000 in 2020, the most recent year for which numbers are available.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the largest group of women who got Ohio abortions in 2020 were in their 20s 59% followed by women in their 30s, 29%. Also unsurprising is that 62% of women got abortions before they were nine weeks pregnant, while less than 2% got them after 19 weeks of pregnancy.

And, while its not surprising that unmarried women are more likely to get abortions, in 2020 they were much more so. The Ohio health stats indicated that 82% of the 20,605 women who received abortions in the state were never married, separated, divorced, or widowed.

But what is perhaps most striking among the Ohio statistics is how overrepresented Black women were.

Ohio is only 13% Black, but Black women received 48% of all abortions in in 2020, the largest single group. Whites, by contrast, make up 82% of the states population, but white women made up only 44% of the group receiving abortions.

The fact that so many unmarried and Black women were having abortions might suggest they didnt believe they have the emotional and financial support they needed to raise a child often in addition to children they already have. Also, more than 27% of Ohios Black people were living in poverty in 2020, compared to just 10% of white people.

However, there is evidence that at least nationally, the poorest women are less likely to seek abortions than their more affluent peers.

A 2015 study by the Brookings Institution found that while women living below the poverty line were much less likely to use contraception and more likely to become unintentionally pregnant, those who did were less likely to get abortions.

Between 2011 and 2013, 32% of women making four times the federal poverty level who had become unintentionally pregnant got abortions, the study said. That compares to less than 9% of women living below the poverty line during the same period.

Cost might be something keeping the poorest women away from the abortion clinic.

Planned Parenthood reports that its lowest-cost, early-pregnancy procedure in Ohio costs $650. If so, further restrictions seem likely to force up the cost particularly if they force women to travel out of state for the procedure.

It seems important with the U.S. Supreme Court apparently poised to overturn the 1973 decision to look at the consequences it might have for women who wont be able to get abortions and for society generally.

One paper published in 2020 by the National Bureau of Economic Research attempted to do that.

In it, two economists and a demographer used credit data to build on the 2016 Turnaway Study, which followed 1,000 women who had sought abortions at 30 clinics across the country. Through follow-up interviews, that study sought to compare women who were turned away from abortions to those who received them.

In the follow-up analysis, The Economic Consequences of Being Denied an Abortion, the research team compared credit information between women who were denied abortions due to gestational limits in states to those of women who received abortions, but were within two weeks of those limits. It sought to look at financial stress caused not only not only from the costs of having and raising a child, but also from a well-documented large and persistent decline in earnings (i.e. child penalty) that women experience on average following the birth of a child.

The three researchers detected a lot of financial stress.

We find that abortion denial resulted in increases in the amount of debt 30 days or more past due of $1,750, an increase of 78% relative to their pre-birth mean, and in negative public records on the credit report such as bankruptcy, evictions, and tax liens, of about 0.07 additional records, or an increase of 81%, the paper said.

It added, These effects are persistent over time, with elevated rates of financial distress observed the year of the birth and for the entire 5 subsequent years for which we observe the women. Our point estimates also suggest that being denied an abortion may reduce credit access and self-sufficiency, particularly in the years immediately following the birth, although these estimates are not always statistically significant.

Of course, worse economic outcomes for those mothers and their babies dont just affect them. They also affect any other children and family members the woman is caring for.

Being forced to carry a child to term might also increase the chances that a child is unwanted and that can cause bad societal outcomes, such as an increase in crime.

In 2001, economists John J. Donohue III and Steven Levitt published The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. It tried to explain the precipitous drop in crime through the 1990s from all-time highs in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

After ruling out other theories for the drop, it concluded that the 1973 legalization of abortion resulted in many fewer unwanted children and, as that cohort came of age, a lot less crime.

Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50% of the recent drop in crime, it said.

The paper stirred a ferocious response across the political spectrum. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, compared it to the pseudo-science of eugenics, which advocated sterilization of people with traits deemed undesirable.

In a 2019 podcast, Levitt said subsequent research reinforced their earlier work. He also denied that his and Donohues research advocated forcing anybody to do anything.

I actually think that our paper makes really clear why this has nothing to do with eugenics, Levitt said. In our hypothesis what happens is abortion becomes legal, women are given the right to choose and what our data suggest is that women are pretty good at choosing when they can bring kids into the world; when they can provide good environments for them.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

See the original post here:

Beyond the rhetoric: Abortion restrictions will affect poor & minorities unequally - Ohio Capital Journal

The only corrective is the high court itself, as future generations reconsider once-settled doctrines. But problems often get worse before they get better, because Supreme Court errors are rarely one-offs. When a cabal of justices goes astray, they tend to keep on going. Mistake follows mistake, and the boundaries of American freedom get squeezed.

Mistakes are, of course, in the eyes of the beholder. The current courts decision to overrule Roe v. Wade wasnt unwelcome to the sizable minority who oppose abortion rights. In their eyes, the Roe precedent was the mistake. But a more rigorous assessment awaits. There have been many high-court rulings that, while comforting to supporters, look abominable, even unconscionable in the fullness of time cases that few rational jurists, left or right, would ever try to defend.

Taken together, the judicial errors of the past paint a tragic, almost mournful, picture of the courts role in American history. Eugenics. Forced sterilization. Racial segregation. Internment for citizens based on ancestry.

Demonstrators protest outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2022, in Washington, D.C.|Mariam Zuhaib/AP Photo

In our governmental system, the Supreme Court, on constitutional questions, is infallible, though, as everyone knows, no one of its members comes within sight or sound of infallibility, averred Justice David Brewer, who served from 1889 to 1910.

Brewer knew what he was talking about, because he sat with a group of justices who were far more conservative than the nation they served. Their decisions damaged American life for generations, denying the government the power to combat the economic excesses of the Gilded Age while giving the imprimatur of the highest law in the land to discrimination and segregation.

The occasion for Brewers remark was a dinner feting the 25th anniversary of the investiture of that courts great dissenter, John Marshall Harlan. By todays standards, its hard to classify Harlan as a liberal or conservative he is, in fact, claimed by both sides but he shared with todays liberals a sense of foreboding about the courts impact on the country. His refuge was his faith in the power of dissent. And dissent he did with a roar that continues to be heard through the centuries.

But an examination of Harlans most significant cases provides almost a civics-class primer on the ways that judicial mistakes can linger and do great harm before finally being overcome. And it reveals that there is no single route to reconsideration.

The easiest path but one less likely to provide optimism for abortion rights supporters is simple persuasion. In 1895, the nations economy was being strangled by monopolistic trusts. Conservative justices were alarmed by the prospect of antitrust prosecutions under the newly approved Sherman Antitrust Act. When the Cleveland administration tried to break up the sugar trust the lowest-hanging fruit in the orchard of trusts, controlling 98 percent of sugar manufacturing the justices balked. A convoluted majority led by Chief Justice Melville Fuller insisted that control of manufacturing did not, in itself, indicate an intent to control prices.

Shockingly, Harlan was the only justice who saw the fallacy in this, rebutting, Was it necessary that formal proof be made that the persons engaged in this combination admitted in words that they intended to restrain trade or commerce? Did anyone expect to find in the written agreements which resulted in the formation of this combination a distinct expression of purpose to restrain trade or commerce?

This was no small matter: In industry after industry, manufacturers were banding together and cutting exclusive deals with railroad operators to drive out competitors and set wages and prices. The vast extent of the problem seemed to force some of the same justices to alter their thinking. Shifting political winds and relentless criticism of the courts logic changed the tide. By 1905 only 10 years later the court had reopened the door to government actions to break up monopolies.

For supporters of Roe, however, a change of heart by existing justices seems patently unlikely. The close margin on abortion rights 5-4, as opposed to the courts 8-1 ruling in the sugar-trust case may give the impression that the court doesnt have so far to go to reach a different result. But unlike the nascent world of antitrust in the 1890s, the dug-in nature of the moral, political and legal issues surrounding abortion rights suggests no reconsideration is in the offing, barring a change in the courts lineup.

Shielding trusts from legal action wasnt the only way the Supreme Court extended the Gilded Age: It also blocked efforts to impose an income tax on the wealthy, leaving the government to fund itself through tariffs on basic goods. Once again, a group of judicial conservatives decided that the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and others who held great fortunes were the victims of government overreach.

But unlike the Sherman Antitrust Act, the income tax was hardly a new idea. It had been utilized to fund the Civil War, so the court couldnt escape the impression that it was making up new rules to protect the wealthy. After the justices split 4-4, the chief justice coaxed an ailing colleague back to Washington to cast the deciding vote. Except he didnt: While the ill jurist supported the income tax, another justice shifted his position against it. The air of behind-the-scenes skullduggery was furthered when Chief Justice Fuller ordered an abrupt announcement of the decision before the opinions were written.

Harlan railed against this, scorching the majority for cravenly upending a long-settled precedent; he also argued that forcing the government to rely on tariffs would be disastrous in a global war, when trade would evaporate.

His warnings resonated with the public. But opponents of the income tax seized on the ruling to block any progressive taxation for nearly two decades. Finally, seeking to quiet demands for a new tax to test the courts mettle, Senate leaders instead agreed to begin the arduous process of amending the Constitution. They doubted the requisite three-quarters of states would ratify an income-tax amendment. They were wrong. Three and a half years later, after Wyoming, Delaware and New Mexico approved the Sixteenth Amendment on the same day, the tax was back to stay.

It was, however, the last time that a deeply contentious political issue was resolved through the amendment process. Changing the Constitution remains a long, hard road, as those seeking direct election of the president can attest.

The greatest tragedy of the court during Harlans years was its fast retreat on the rights of African Americans, an injustice not only to millions of people but to the spirit and plain wording of the Constitution. The court struck down federal civil rights protections, refused to enforce voting rights and allowed states to ban interracial education. It also endorsed the idea that separating Blacks and whites was wholly consistent with the Constitutions equal-protection clause, as long as the accommodations were roughly equal.

That case, the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson, occasioned Harlans famous declarations that the Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens, and that under the law, the humblest is the peer of the powerful.

Thurgood Marshall stands outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 22, 1958.|AP Photo

Harlans dissent was immediately recognized by African Americans as a defining statement of purpose under the law, but drew little attention in the white world. A half-century later, though, it was adopted by Thurgood Marshall and other civil rights lawyers as a component of their legal case to overturn Plessy.

A new generation of justices recognized the tragic cost to Black people of racial separation. They also anticipated an inevitable backlash among white racists that would occur if the court were to demand desegregation. So they worked hard, over months and years, to project a unified front. When the court overruled Plessy in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the vote was 9-0. It was an unambiguous message, a definitive statement.

Todays supporters of the courts decision to overrule Roe v. Wade invite comparisons with the saga of Plessy and Brown, as a way of showing that justices must follow their consciences over legal precedent. But the comparisons also reveal the vast distance in spirit between the Brown decision and that in Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health. While the Brown court recognized the potential disturbance to the county and spoke with one voice, the Dobbs majority couldnt resist overturning abortion rights by a one-vote margin, all but challenging future justices to undo their work.

Flipping back and forth on a constitutional right based on a single change in court membership cant help but undermine the force of the law and the courts mystique. Thus, it might be predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts whose concern for the courts credibility led him to refrain from voting to overturn Roe might now be reluctant to overturn Dobbs for the same reason. To prevail, abortion rights supporters would then need at least two changes in court membership plus the willingness of new justices to abandon any semblance of respect for precedent.

Its a tall order, but one that may, in fact, represent the likeliest source of repeal. In Harlans era, the appeal to future generations was a cry for greater wisdom. Today, such appeals are more direct to justices appointed with a different agenda.

View original post here:

When the Supreme Court Makes a Mistake - POLITICO

On Wednesday, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended Mass in St. Peters Basilica in the Vatican. She greeted Pope Francis before the Mass and later received Holy Communion, despite being prohibited from doing so over her pro-abortion beliefs by her home archbishop.

The event generated an understandable flurry of Catholic media attention. Her decision to receive Communion (not distributed by the pope) has been held up in some corners as an act of defiance by the Speaker against her bishop, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, and the fact that she wasn't denied at the Communion plate as tacit Vatican, even papal, support for her.

But how should Catholics interpret Pelosis Roman holiday?

Share

Last month, Archbishop Cordileone announced that Pelosi would not be admitted to Holy Communion in her home archdiocese, invoking canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that Catholics obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Citing the Speakers decades of support for legal abortion, in May, Cordileone wrote that a Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others, and outlined his own years of pastoral attempts to dialogue with her on the subject.

After the Supreme Courts decision overturning Roe v. Wade last week, Pelosi has been, if anything, even more strident in her support for legal abortion, and continued to attend Mass at her usual parish in Georgetown, D.C.

With regards to Pelosis attendance at St. Peters on Wednesday, its clear she wasnt there as an anonymous member of the assembly she met briefly with the pope before Mass began, and she was seated in the VIP diplomatic section.

While it's unclear if the individual priest who distributed Communion to her knew who she was, in a sense its irrelevant the Vatican is certainly aware of her situation and could have taken steps accordingly, if it wanted to.

But jumping to the conclusion that by allowing Pelosi to present herself for Communion is some kind of pointed rebuke to Cordileone doesnt necessarily follow.

Its not unreasonable to observe that denying Pelosi Communion on Wednesday would hardly be a neutral act while many of Cordileones brother bishops lined up to support the archbishops action, and promised to honor his decision, as Pelosis proper pastor in their own dioceses, others disagreed, including Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, echoing a debate among the bishops last year about who, if anyone ever, should be denied Communion.

Its also worth noting that, while he did so invoking and applying canon law, Cordileone didnt impose a canonical punishment on Pelosi, or declare her to be excommunicated; he issued a public account of a pastoral judgment he had made.

While other bishops would be bound by law to honor a formal canonical penalty imposed on Pelosi, choosing to honor Cordileones pastoral judgment is, essentially, a matter of episcopal collegiality.

Ordering St. Peters Eucharistic ministers to recognize and deny Pelosi Communion would have been as pointed an intervention in a live debate among the U.S. bishops as on the Speakers individual circumstances. And this is to say nothing of the diplomatic ramifications.

Many Catholic state figures have presented themselves for Communion at the Vatican over the years, despite being generally known to be at odds with the Churchs moral teachings, and the default position has been not to deny them, even when it creates controversy: In 2011, former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe famously received Communion at St. Peters during the Mass of beatification for St. John Paul II, and few took this to be an implied endorsement of his actions in government by the pope.

Indeed, on abortion the pope has been every bit as outspoken as Cordileone, calling it daily homicide and comparing the practice to Nazi eugenics while repeatedly likening abortion doctors to hitmen.

Even on the subject of Communion and pro-abortion politicians, it was Francis who said last year that those who are not in the community, cannot receive Communion, while stressing his desire to see bishops demonstrate the kind of committed pastoral concern for them which Cordileone outlined in his announcement regarding Pelosi.

Even if he was speaking in the abstract and not of particular cases, Francis actually went further than Cordileone, describing pro-abortion politicians as excommunicated: Out of the community: excommunicated. Its a harsh word, but they dont belong in the community, because they were not baptized, or because they are estranged from it.

While Francis noted that hed never himself been confronted with a pro-abortion politician in the Communion line, he also stopped distributing Communion himself as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, avoiding just such potential encounters.

It is, perhaps, fair to ask if the pope should be more publicly encouraging of bishops like Cordileone who take him at his word, but declining to make the second most visible American politicians relationship with the Church a Vatican problem isnt the same thing as lining up against the archbishop.

Its also worth noting that, among much discussion about abortion, the pope, the U.S. bishops, and the politicization of Communion, the person most directly affected by the situation is Pelosi herself.

Leaving aside the public scandal her political support for abortion occasions, both for Catholics and non-Catholics, both Francis and Cordileone would seem to agree that her political actions carry heavy consequences for her soul.

Her spiritual welfare is probably a far more pressing concern for both Francis and her local archbishop than sending coded messages through the Communion line.

Share The Pillar

The rest is here:

What to make of Pelosi's Roman holiday - by Ed. Condon - The Pillar

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, by a vote of 8 to 1, to uphold a state's right to forcibly sterilize a person considered unfit to procreate. The case, known as Buck v. Bell, centered on a young woman named Carrie Buck, whom the state of Virginia had deemed to be "feebleminded."

Author Adam Cohen tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that Buck v. Bell was considered a victory for America's eugenics movement, an early 20th century school of thought that emphasized biological determinism and actively sought to "breed out" traits that were considered undesirable.

"There were all kinds of categories of people who were deemed to be unfit [to procreate]," Cohen says. "The eugenicists looked at evolution and survival of the fittest, as Darwin was describing it, and they believed 'We can help nature along, if we just plan who reproduces and who doesn't reproduce.' "

All told, as many as 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century. The victims of state-mandated sterilization included people like Buck who had been labeled "mentally deficient," as well as those who who were deaf, blind and diseased. Minorities, poor people and "promiscuous" women were often targeted.

Adam Cohen is a former member of The New York Times editorial board and former senior writer for Time magazine. Eleanor Randolph/Penguin Press hide caption

Cohen's new book about the Buck case, Imbeciles, takes its name from the terms eugenicists used to categorize the "feebleminded." In it, he revisits the Buck v. Bell ruling and explores the connection between the American eugenics movement and the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.

Cohen notes that the instinct to "demonize" people who are different is still prevalent in the U.S. today, particularly in the debate over immigration.

"I think these instincts to say that we need to stop these other people from 'polluting us,' from changing the nature of our country, they're very real," Cohen warns. "The idea that those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it it's very troubling that we don't remember this past."

On the case of Carrie Buck

This is this poor young woman, really nothing wrong with her physically or mentally, a victim of a terrible sexual assault, and there's a little hearing, she's declared feebleminded and she gets sent off to the colony for epileptics and feebleminded. ...

Imbeciles

The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck

by Adam Cohen

When she's at the colony, the guy who is running the colony, Dr. Albert Priddy, is on the prowl. He's looking for someone to put at the center of this test case that they want to bring, so he's looking for someone to sterilize, and he sees Carrie Buck when she comes in, he does the examination himself, and there are a lot of things about her that excite him. She is deemed to be feebleminded, she has a mother who is feebleminded, so that's good because you can show some genetics, and then they're hoping that [her] baby could be determined to be feebleminded too, then you could really show a genetic pattern of feeblemindedness. The fact that she had been pregnant out of wedlock was another strike against her. So he fixes on her and thinks Carrie Buck is going to be the perfect potential plaintiff. ...

He chooses her, and then under the Virginia law, they have to have a sterilization hearing at the colony, which they do and they give her a lawyer (who is really not a lawyer for her; it's really someone who had been the chairman of the board of the colony and was sympathetic to the colony's side) and they have a bit of a sham hearing where she is determined to be a suitable person for sterilization; they vote to sterilize her, and that is the order that then gets challenged by Carrie as the plaintiff first in the Virginia court system and then in the Supreme Court.

On why he considers Buck v. Bell to be one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history

If you start by just looking at all the human misery that was inflicted, about 70,000 Americans were sterilized as a result of this decision, so that's an awful lot of people who wanted to have children who weren't able to have children. Also, we have to factor in all the many people who were being segregated, who were being held in these institutions for eugenic reasons, because they were feebleminded, whose lives unfolded living in places like the colony, rather than living in freedom. Beyond the human effect though, there was something just so ugly about this decision and when [we] think about what we want the Supreme Court to be, what the founders wanted the Supreme Court to be, it was supposed to be our temple of justice, the place that people could go when all the other parts of our society, all the other parts of the government, were not treating them right.

On how eugenicists sought to address the "threat" to the gene pool

The eugenicists saw two threats to the national gene pool: One was the external one, which they were addressing through immigration law; the other was the internal one what to do about the people who were already here. They had a few ideas.

The first eugenics law in the United States was passed in Connecticut in 1895, and it was a law against certain kinds of marriages. They were trying to stop certain unfit people from reproducing through marriage. It wasn't really what they wanted, though, because they realized that people would just reproduce outside of marriage.

So their next idea was what they called segregation. The idea was to get people who were deemed unfit institutionalized during their reproductive years, particularly for women, keep them there, make sure they didn't reproduce, and then women were often let go when they had passed their reproductive years because they were no longer a threat to the gene pool. That had a problem too, though. The problem was that it would be really expensive to segregate, institutionalize the number of people the eugenicists were worried about. ...

Their next idea was eugenic sterilization and that allowed for a model in which they would take people in to institutions, eugenically sterilize them, and then they could let them go, because they were no longer a threat. That's why eugenic sterilization really became the main model that the eugenicists embraced and that many states enacted laws to allow.

On deeming people "feebleminded"

"Feebleminded" was really the craze in American eugenics. There was this idea that we were being drowned in a tide of feeblemindedness that basically unintelligent people were taking over, reproducing more quickly than the intelligent people but it was also a very malleable term that was used to define large categories of people that again, were disliked by someone who was in the decision-making position. So, women who were thought to be overly interested in sex, licentious, were sometimes deemed feebleminded. It was a broad category and it was very hard to prove at one of these feeblemindedness hearings that you were not feebleminded.

On the involuntary sterilization procedure

For men it was something like a vasectomy. For women it was a salpingectomy, where they cauterized the path that the egg takes toward fertilization. It was, in the case of women, not minor surgery and when you read about what happened, it's many, many days of recovery and it had certain dangers attached to it, and a lot of the science was still quite new. ...

When you add onto all that, the fact that in many, many cases the women involved were not told what was being done to them, they might be told that they were having an appendectomy, they weren't being told that the government has decided that you are unfit to reproduce and we're then going to have surgery on you, so that just compounds the horror of the situation.

On how the Nazis borrowed from the U.S. eugenics sterilization program

We really were on the cutting edge. We were doing a lot of this in the 1910s and 1920s. Indiana adopted a eugenic sterilization law, America's first in 1907. We were writing the eugenics sterilization statutes that decided who should be sterilized. We also had people who were writing a lot of what might be thought of as pro-Aryan theory. So you have people like Madison Grant who wrote a very popular book called The Passing of a Great Race, which really talked about the superiority of Nordics, as he called them, and how they were endangered by all the brown people and the non-Nordics who were taking over.

On a 1924 immigration law, which was inspired by eugenicists, that prevented Anne Frank's family from entering the U.S.

Under the old immigration laws where it was pretty much "show up," they would've been able to emigrate, but suddenly they were trapped by very unfavorable national quotas, so this really was a reason that so many Jews were turned away.

One very poignant aspect of it that I've thought about as I was working on the book is in the late '90s some correspondence appeared, was uncovered, in which Otto Frank was writing repeatedly to the State Department begging for visas for himself and his wife and his two daughters, Margot and Anne, and was turned down, and that was because there were now these quotas in place. If they had not been, it seems clear that he would've been able to get a visa for his whole family, including his daughter Anne Frank.

So when we think about the fact that Anne Frank died in a concentration camp, we're often told that it was because the Nazis believed the Jews were genetically inferior, that they were lesser than Aryans. That's true, but to some extent Anne Frank died in a concentration camp because the U.S. Congress believed that as well.

Continue reading here:

The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations

The eugenics movement has never been about giving women the right to choose when theyre ready to bear children. On the contrary, it has been about ripping that autonomy from women deemed inferior, unworthy, irrelevant.

Get Weekend Reads from Ideas

A weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'

The eugenics movement in the United States was nurtured in the early 20th century by academics, such as Edwin Alderman, the first president of the University of Virginia, who declared that white males were the fittest to rule. His racial hierarchies led his state, and many others, to violently deny those they deemed unfit the right to reproduce.

More than 100,000 women, mostly Black, Latina, and Indigenous, were forcibly sterilized under state-sanctioned programs over decades all the way into the 1970s. As journalist Linda Villarosa recently wrote in The New York Times Magazine, The practice of being sterilized, including during unrelated surgery, grew so common among poor Black women in the South that it came to be known as a Mississippi appendectomy.

It is no coincidence that Hitlers 1933 eugenics law, which led to the sterilization of hundreds of thousands of undesirables, mostly Jews, was modeled after US legislation.

In the United States, the practice continued even after a landmark lawsuit filed in 1973 on behalf of two Black girls who were sterilized without their parents consent forced the federal government to stop funding such procedures. From 2006 to 2010, at least 148 women inmates were sterilized by the California Department of Corrections without required state approvals; some told reporters that theyd been coerced into the procedure.

Toxic remnants of the eugenicist ideology persist to this day, fueling extremist views like the great replacement narrative, which frames our nations demographic evolution as a plot to suppress white power. It was this ideology that reportedly motivated a heavily armed 18-year-old to drive 200 miles last month to target Black shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo.

This is the true history of eugenics in the United States.

To suggest, in a Supreme Court opinion no less, that abortion rights advocates are somehow abetting this abhorrent ideology by ensuring women have access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care is stunningly wrong.

It was Justice Clarence Thomas who first brought this disinformation to the Supreme Court, in a 2019 concurrence. Conservative activists echoed it in an amicus brief in the current case. The first subheading in the brief sums up their argument: The Birth Control Movement, Abortion Advocacy, and Eugenics Are All Rooted In Social Darwinism and the Elimination of Undesirable Populations.

This framing implies, offensively, that Black women and other women of color are not capable of making informed decisions about their own bodies and their own futures but are being manipulated by racist forces when they choose abortion. I hear reprehensible echoes of the eugenicists cries about the feeble-minded in this argument.

It is also a stunning misdirection. The truth is, the very states that claim to care the most about protecting the unborn also do the least to protect the health of women and children.

In Mississippi, the state at the center of this Supreme Court case, a single mother with two young children and an annual income of just $6,000 earns too much to qualify for subsidized health care. This can be a death sentence. More than 4,000 women in the United States, a disproportionate share of them Black, die each year from cervical cancer. The disease can be treated successfully with early detection. Yet those screens are out of reach for many women, especially in the South, because legislators refuse to extend Medicaid access.

Mississippi also has the worst records on infant mortality and preventable mortality of any state, and a maternal mortality rate five times higher than Californias, which launched an impressive statewide effort in 2006 to recognize and effectively treat the most common causes of death in pregnancy and childbirth. Again, this is due in large part to legislative decisions about who deserves access to quality health care.

To suggest that women who choose not to carry a pregnancy to term in this environment are falling into a eugenicist trap is absurd. Yet that reasoning has propelled strands of the antiabortion movement for years, and within days could be cited by the Supreme Court as one justification for overturning Roe v. Wade.

At this crucial moment, we must raise our voices to declare these truths: Abortion is an essential component of health care. Health care is a human right. And choice is not eugenics. Lets stand together to set the record straight.

Michelle A. Williams is dean of the faculty at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Read more:

The Supreme Court is misinformed on eugenics - The Boston Globe

The Supreme Courts decision to strike down a constitutional right to abortion that has been in place for 49 years reverberated through campus on Friday, prompting more than 150 students, faculty, and community members to rally on the Green.

The crowd chanted, cheered the students, state lawmakers, and others who spoke in support of reproductive freedom, and waved as drivers honked their horns in response to signs that bore such messages as Bans Off Our Bodies and Real Men Trust Women.

Carolina Brown-Vasquez 24, of Alexandria, Va., rolled up on her bicycle to listen to the speakers.

When shed heard the courts decision that morning, a wave of sadness had come crashing over her, the psychology and anthropology student said. Its really scary and sad to see the U.S. take steps backwards.

Nearby, Griffin Thomas 24, a theater and history major from San Mateo, Calif., also stood in the early evening sun, listening to the short, impassioned talks.He owed it to his female friends to be out here and to make sure they stay safe in whatever they choose to do, Thomas said. I hope that we can get Roe v. Wade back.

In its ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, the court upheld the Mississippi law that would ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The decision effectively overruled Roe v. Wade and places abortion law in the hands of state legislatures.

Nearly half of the states are poised to ban or restrict abortion. Some 16 states and Washington, D.C., currently have laws protecting access to abortion.

Dartmouthreleased a statementFriday afternoon on the decision.

Dartmouthscommitment to reproductive health care, autonomy, and well-being for every member of our community is unwavering. Dartmouth is fortunate to have a medical school that is deeply committed to reproductive rights for all, including childbearing decisions, maternal health, and their effect on families through its research and education missions. As a medical school focused on training supportive health care professionals, the Geisel School of Medicine will continue promoting better health outcomes and access for women and people from all gender identities, the statement said.

Across the institution, Dartmouth will continue to offer insurance coverage to our students and to our employees and their families through a national medical network in support of reproductive health and in compliance with federal and state law. Such care includes pregnancy termination, infertility services, counseling, and family planning.

Some faculty and other community members also shared their thoughts about the implications of the ruling with Dartmouth News:

Planned Parenthood Generation Action Co-President Eliza Holmes 24 speaks at the rally on Friday. (Photo by Erin Supinka)

Eliza Holmes 24Co-President, Planned Parenthood Generation Action

Today, I am in mourning. I grieve with those who fought so hard for Roe to be law of the land, now living to see it fall not even 50 years later. I grieve with those who will now be affected by this decision, those who will be forced to travel outside of their state lines in order to receive abortion care. I grieve with people who cannot afford to take time off work and pay unnecessary travel expenses in order to receive abortion care. I grieve with Black and Indigenous people and people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people, who already experience racism and discrimination when it comes to reproductive care, and who will now face greater abortion restrictions in their communities with this decision. We are all in mourning today over what has been lost, but we are also angryat the Supreme Court, at legislators who want to take away our right to choose. We are angry at politicians who want to control our futures and make decisions about our bodies without our consent.

(Courtesy of Randall Balmer)

Randall BalmerJohn Phillips Professor in Religion

On the face of it, the Supreme Courts Dobbs decision is cause for great celebration for the religious right, and I have no doubt they will treat it as such. This moment, according to their own narrative, represents the culmination of a half-centurys efforts to overturn a grave wrong.

Well, not exactly. Evangelicals came late to the antiabortion cause; they considered it a Catholic issue throughout the 1970s. The religious right mobilized as a political movement in the late 1970s to defend racial segregation in their institutions, including Bob Jones University and various church-sponsored segregation academies. Abortion was cobbled into the religious rights agenda much later, just in time for the 1980 presidential election.

As a historian, I cant help wondering if the Dobbs decision doesnt have a parallel in the 18th Amendment, the Prohibition amendment. Evangelicals of an earlier age celebrated ratification of the amendment, but it turned out to be a pyrrhic victory. Prohibition became unenforceable, and it led to rampant lawlessness.

The lesson? Ive long believed that abortion should be treated as a moral issue, not a legal matter. (The only thing both sides of the abortion debate agree on is that making abortion illegal will not materially affect the incidence of abortion.) If the anti-abortion people truly care about limiting abortion, they would do well to focus on changing the moral conversation around the issueas well as advocating sex education and making contraception more available.

(Courtesy Esther Rosario)

Esther M. RosarioLecturer, Department of Philosophy

Roe v. Wades overturn is shattering but not surprising. Anti-abortionists have been working toward overturning Roe for over a decade. Texans have been suffering the life-threatening and life-diminishing consequences of anti-abortion legislation for just as long, and now approximately 36 million people who can become pregnant will suffer those same consequences.

What I find particularly egregious about the decision is Justice Samuel Alitos invocation of previous comments from Justice Clarence Thomas, which allege that access to abortion is eugenic. Footnote 41 of the opinion states, Other amicus briefs present arguments about the motives of proponents of liberal access to abortion. They note that some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population

What is egregious about this part of the decision is that its not only a red herring but boldly mischaracterizes eugenics in the U.S. context. According to Thomas, having access to abortion harms Black women, but this couldnt be further from the truth.

In fact, not providing Black cis women with reproductive choices and access to reproductive healthcare is a form of negative eugenics. Just as state-mandated sterilization denies Black cis women a reproductive choice, so does lack of abortion access. Black cis women have the highest maternal mortality rate in the U.S., and this decision is likely to compound maternal and infant mortality rates. Removing abortion as a health care option will only further foreclose the lives of Black cis women and the futures of all people who can become pregnant.

Planned Parenthood Generation Action Co-President Advaita Chaudhari 24 speaks at the rally on Friday. (Photo by Corinne Arndt Girouard)

Meanwhile, Dartmouth Health, whose president and CEO is Joanne Conroy 77, also said access to abortion is critical.

Dartmouth Health is unwavering in its belief in the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship to make the best-informed decisions for patients to reflect their needs and healthcare priorities, the health care system said in a statement.

We also strongly believe that abortion is an essential component of health care. Like all medical matters, decisions regarding abortion should be made by patients in consultation with their health care providers. Abortion remains legal and accessible in New Hampshire and Vermont, and Dartmouth Health will continue to provide this care as part of our commitment to our patients.

And the Dartmouth College Health Service reiterated on Friday that it is committed to the sexual and reproductive health of Dartmouth students.

See original here:

Anti-Abortion Ruling Reverberates Through Campus - Dartmouth News