I was listening to NPR the other day and since there is an election coming up, of course that was the big subject. Their reporters were interviewing a woman out in Colorado about the issues she was concerned about. She lives in a community that has seen much better days, and like so many of us, struggles to make ends meet. She made a statement that really hit home with me, because I have felt similar things.
She said something that went like this: "We hear so much about reproductive rights. Well, I am not concerned with reproductive rights. I am concerned with being able to make a living, to keep my home. I'm concerned about jobs, about the economy. That is much more important to me than reproductive rights."
I heartily agree with this woman, being involved in a struggle right now for housing justice. As a woman who has struggled with economic issues all her life, it irks me that the one thing that it seems that I do have a right to, that people will fight for my right to, is to have an abortion. Should I say that I am pregnant and in a fix, there are people who will see to it that I get down to Planned Parenthood and past those evil pro-life picketers, so that I can take care of my little problem. I might even be able to get someone to pay for it.
What I have to ask--and what I think this woman in Colorado is saying--is are these people doing it for my benefit, or for theirs? For all this talk of reproduction being a private business, it isn't, and it seems that there is a lot of support for the idea that certain people--namely poor people, and especially poor people of color--should not have children. This is not a new idea. It's not talked about much but the early birth control pioneers deliberately targeted poor women and women of color under the idea that they were doing them a favor. Don't get me wrong, I am not against birth control, and I don't believe every woman's destiny is to be like the Duggars, but I question the motivations of many who profess concern for the poor. Especially when it seems like that is the only solution they are offering.
One of our local candidates the other day told NPR that one of the things he will work for if elected is that he would require all those receiving public assistance to go on birth control--which would, of course, be provided free of charge (in other words, at taxpayer expense). Those who refused and continued to bear children would find all public funding cut off. I do not hear our local reproductive rights advocates screaming bloody murder. Why should they? We all know that people on public assistance are a burden on the taxpayer and there are too many of them already as it is (especially, though we can't say it, those who are--whisper--black). If this were to be put to a vote, I am sure this candidate's proposal would get a lot of support, might even pass.
It's beautiful. If you can stop poor women from reproducing, then there won't be a next generation. In that respect, by remaining childless, I have already done more for my cause than all the e-mails, phone calls, and letters I can write or make. And--I did it without costing other taxpayers a dime. The only thing better maybe would be for me to exercise my Second Amendment rights, get a gun, and commit suicide. Then I won't be a burden in my old age! Hey, some states have already legalized that option. I'm sure that I could get the NRA and the Hemlock Society to help me out there.
And meanwhile my slimeball, cowardly, exploitative absentee slumlord can continue to hide out whereever he (or she) is hiding--the name and address in LA turned out to be some kind of agent, and the trail goes cold after that--because after all, we are just trailer trash.
She said something that went like this: "We hear so much about reproductive rights. Well, I am not concerned with reproductive rights. I am concerned with being able to make a living, to keep my home. I'm concerned about jobs, about the economy. That is much more important to me than reproductive rights."
I heartily agree with this woman, being involved in a struggle right now for housing justice. As a woman who has struggled with economic issues all her life, it irks me that the one thing that it seems that I do have a right to, that people will fight for my right to, is to have an abortion. Should I say that I am pregnant and in a fix, there are people who will see to it that I get down to Planned Parenthood and past those evil pro-life picketers, so that I can take care of my little problem. I might even be able to get someone to pay for it.
What I have to ask--and what I think this woman in Colorado is saying--is are these people doing it for my benefit, or for theirs? For all this talk of reproduction being a private business, it isn't, and it seems that there is a lot of support for the idea that certain people--namely poor people, and especially poor people of color--should not have children. This is not a new idea. It's not talked about much but the early birth control pioneers deliberately targeted poor women and women of color under the idea that they were doing them a favor. Don't get me wrong, I am not against birth control, and I don't believe every woman's destiny is to be like the Duggars, but I question the motivations of many who profess concern for the poor. Especially when it seems like that is the only solution they are offering.
One of our local candidates the other day told NPR that one of the things he will work for if elected is that he would require all those receiving public assistance to go on birth control--which would, of course, be provided free of charge (in other words, at taxpayer expense). Those who refused and continued to bear children would find all public funding cut off. I do not hear our local reproductive rights advocates screaming bloody murder. Why should they? We all know that people on public assistance are a burden on the taxpayer and there are too many of them already as it is (especially, though we can't say it, those who are--whisper--black). If this were to be put to a vote, I am sure this candidate's proposal would get a lot of support, might even pass.
It's beautiful. If you can stop poor women from reproducing, then there won't be a next generation. In that respect, by remaining childless, I have already done more for my cause than all the e-mails, phone calls, and letters I can write or make. And--I did it without costing other taxpayers a dime. The only thing better maybe would be for me to exercise my Second Amendment rights, get a gun, and commit suicide. Then I won't be a burden in my old age! Hey, some states have already legalized that option. I'm sure that I could get the NRA and the Hemlock Society to help me out there.
And meanwhile my slimeball, cowardly, exploitative absentee slumlord can continue to hide out whereever he (or she) is hiding--the name and address in LA turned out to be some kind of agent, and the trail goes cold after that--because after all, we are just trailer trash.
