To the Editors:

Last Sunday the Oberlin Pro-Life Union of Students hosted a talk on “Reproductive Racism,” in which Akua Furlow pointed out links between the birth control movement and eugenics.

As Ms. Furlow argued, Planned Parenthood’s response to the criticisms against its founder, Margaret Sanger, has been something of a cop-out. Planned Parenthood’s web site states that pro-life activists attack Sanger and her links to eugenics societies because “she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of PPFA and the contemporary family planning movement.”

As a pro-choice individual, I am able to admit that the family planning movement does not have an “unassailable” reputation. In the past and even today, birth control has been specifically targeted at low-income women and women of color.

Policies that disproportionately affect the most marginalized women fail to be adequately addressed by pro-choice organizations. Racism is still present in our society and the pro-choice movement is no exception.

It is important for pro-choice activists to turn a critical eye to ourselves, our organizations and the movement as a whole.

As NARAL, NOW and other major groups gear up for the next presidential election, my e-mail inbox is full of requests for monetary donations to help “protect privacy rights and a woman’s right to choose.”

References to Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court abound. Obviously, legal challenges to Roe and changes in the makeup of the Supreme Court could have a huge impact on women’s access to abortion.

However, there are many other policies and programs that disproportionately affect low-income women of color and never appear in fundraising appeals.

One of these is Project Prevention, a manipulative organization that targets drug users and offers $200 cash to men and women who agree to be sterilized or go on long-term hormonal birth control. You can read all about it at www.cashforbirthcontrol.com.

Another example is the case of Whitner vs. South Carolina, in which a pregnant woman was sentenced to nine years in prison for “child abuse” because she had used crack during pregnancy.

Punitive policies that go after pregnant drug users discourage such women from seeking prenatal care, further putting the fetus at risk.

In addition they tend to focus on crack cocaine use and ignore other harmful substances like alcohol and tobacco.

If the latter two were prosecuted, a greater number of white and middle class women would wind up behind bars.

Ms. Furlow asked the question, “What is reproductive freedom?” I believe that reproductive freedom lies in the concept of reproductive rights: the right to choose if and when you want to have children, the right to education about birth control and pregnancy options, and the right to access reproductive health services without coercion or intimidation from anyone.

The concept of reproductive freedom is not restricted to abortion and also embodies the right of women to carry pregnancies to term without pressure from others to abort.

An ideological framework that recognizes reproductive rights as human rights provides a good standpoint from which to criticize the policies above.

It is with this core commitment to reproductive freedom that we can continue to fight against racism within the pro-choice movement.

Susie Armitage
College senior
Co-chair, Students United for Reproductive Freedom