Is abortion a racist plot? Of course not
WASHINGTON — Perhaps members of the anti-abortion movement are growing a bit desperate. Though they’ve managed to crimp women’s reproductive rights through decades of legislative maneuvering and extra-legal harassment, they still cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, the historic 1973 Supreme Court decision. Nor have they moved public opinion much: A majority of Americans still believe that current law should stand.
Perhaps that’s why some factions in the “pro-life” crusade are professing a newfound concern for the well-being of black children. Perhaps that’s why “racism” has become the battle cry of anti-abortion groups whose members — overwhelmingly white, conservative and Republican — like to think that racism no longer exists.
Georgia’s largest anti-abortion group, Georgia Right to Life, is presenting itself as the last line of defense against a widespread plot to wipe out black people — a pogram of sorts. The group has mounted billboards throughout black Atlanta neighborhoods, claiming that “Black children are an endangered species” because of abortions.
While anti-abortion activists have long derided Margaret Sanger, considered the mother of modern family planning, for her endorsement of eugenics, they have more recently taken aim at such mainstream organizations as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, claiming it, too, is run by bigots. Two years ago, a faith-based group with ties to black clergy sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus denouncing Planned Parenthood for its “racist and eugenic goals.”
Well, paranoid theories are usually impervious to facts, but let’s try some facts, anyway. Despite the obstacles many black children face on the road to a successful adulthood — poverty, crime, poor schools — their numbers are not threatened. Black women have a higher birth rate than the national average.
But it is also true that black women use abortion services disproportionately. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit that advocates for reproductive health, the abortion rate for black American women is almost five times that for white women. About one-third of all abortions are obtained by white women and about 37 percent by black women (who account for less than seven percent of the population), according to Susan Cohen of the non-profit Alan Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for reproductive health.
Those numbers are certainly troubling. But are racists persuading black women to have abortions? Is there some group of grim executioners looking to carry out a shadowy genocide?
That’s not only nutty; it’s also insulting. It’s both sexist and racist to suggest that black women don’t have the intellectual and emotional firepower to make their own decisions.
(Largely owing to easier-to-use contraceptives, abortion rates have been declining for the last 25 years, black women’s rates falling along with those of other ethnic groups. However, Latinas and black women still terminate pregnancies at higher rates than white women.)
“The truth is that behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. . .Because black women as a group want the same number of children as white women, but have so many more unintended pregnancies, they are more likely than white women to terminate an unintended pregnancy by abortion to avoid an unwanted birth,” Cohen wrote in a paper entitled, “Abortion and Women of Color: The Bigger Picture.”
If conservatives are sincere about curbing abortions — among all women, white, black and brown — they should support efforts to broaden women’s health care, which includes reproductive health care. Easy access to contraceptives would encourage their use, thereby reducing unintended pregnancies — and abortions.
“The health disparities for low-income women and women of color are enormous,” noted Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, which provides full-service reproductive health care — including non-controversial procedures such as annual pelvic exams — to women who cannot get it elsewhere.
But social and religious conservatives have been fighting health care reform, which would broaden access to reproductive health care, with the passion they normally reserve for bashing Roe v Wade. That’s why it’s hard to believe they really care about black women — or their children.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
276 comments Add your comment
Steve
March 17th, 2010
3:45 pm
Bill: What about the sin of divorce and remarriage? Those things are far more destructive to families than the things you mentioned. Why is it that christians always seem to forget divorce and remarriage.
Keep up the good fight!
March 17th, 2010
3:51 pm
Linda…nice talking point jibberish….where in the bill is the “mandate for abortion” I mean precisely. The exact language. Cause I believe language from the bill to the contrary has been quoted in this very blog today.
Also have to announce the next Secular Dems/liberals/progressive plot meeting is Tuesday at noon. Remember no need to bring birth certificates….we’ll all be makin new ones at the meeting.
Linda
March 17th, 2010
3:54 pm
Steve@1:59, How old are you? I can assure you that unwed pregnancies & children born outside of wedlock in 1961 when Obama was born were much more taboo than they were in 2008 when the Palin baby was born. Women got pregnant in the same way in ‘61 as they do today & had just as much info then as they do now.
The best mother in the world is one who carries a baby to full-term, knowing he or she will be handicapped, & who loves & cares for that child as much or more than their other children. (My father never walked a step in his life.)
I think it’s been hypocritical to condemn Sarah Palin for giving birth to a child, knowing he would be handicapped, her parenting skills for the pregnancy of her daughter & her daughter for having a child out-side of wedlock &, at the same time, ignoring the fact that Obama’s father was not legally married to his mother. If “Palin woefully was negligent,” then Obama’s grandmother woefully was negligent. They weren’t. If Obama’s mother had an abortion, what a waste that would have been.
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 17th, 2010
4:09 pm
Keep Up, you have fallacies in all the assumptions you are generalizing with anyone. NO ONE has an argument about people that SHOULD NOT receive health care. BUT-health care is not a right, entitlement, OR cheap.
Preexisting conditions for example, in this-the government wants to deny Insurance Company’s the ability to charge more for someone with a known disease that will cost more.
So-in essence, someone with a condition that will require millions in care, is entitled that coverage for hundreds of dollars a month. Economically speaking, it won’t add up-whether that is private insurance, or a government run health option. The bottom line is, the cost will come elsewhere.
That means higher premiums for everyone because insurance is about dispersing risk. But government will regulate that too…so because it’s costing you more money now, and you are insuring even more people, you won’t make money. You will in fact lose money, if you are a private insurer. So why will you stay in business? You won’t. Which means people will be forced into the government option. BUT-the government isn’t bound by any different laws of economics that the insurance companies are. It’s the ultimate bait and switch-you will pay a lower premium but cover it with higher taxes.
It’s a decision that will force the largest employers in this country to move out of a market, creating more unemployment, and working class people will get less take-home pay due to higher taxes.
The issue is really not that complicated except to people who do not understand basic principles of economics, as well as the concept of health insurance. Insurance does not defer costs, it disperses risks. Saying you are going to force lower premiums does nothing to change the costs. We will all pay for it in one way or another, but we will lose more in the charitable donations that plays a part in health coverage because they won’t feel the need since the “government” will handle it.
There is no argument from anyone that people do not deserve good health care. If you ignore the arguments of those who disagree with this bill under the guise that they are saying people do not deserve health care-then you are ignorant of arguments of both sides.
You don’t understand the difference between deregulating, increasing competition, and true reform to reduce costs for more so that insurance costs/premiums go down. As opposed to government control that says regardless of cost-you have to charge less. Regardless of your individual cost, you will pay similar to everyone else-meaning we all pay more.
When you can understand the business of health care and insurance, then maybe you will be better equipped to make an argument in offering better health care.
Keep up the good fight!
March 17th, 2010
4:17 pm
BigD…I understand much more than you think. I also see health care abuses like children born with birth defects and denied covered for “pre-existing conditions” A “for profit” system of health care has a number of inconsistencies especitally with CEO’s who make millions in salary. I understand the efficiencies of single payer and public option. I understand consumer law and being certain that consumers get what they pay for. I also understand, as ironically as it may seem that you point this out in an opinion related to abortion and racism, that we as a society do not put to death those who may have ailments and illness and that we already pay through our health care dollars and bankruptcy for the treatment of those who cant afford it. Perhaps when you understand the business of health care and insurance better, then maybe you’ll be better equiped for real argument.
Linda
March 17th, 2010
4:59 pm
Keep up@3:51, Maybe you haven’t heard, but it’s politically incorrect to read bills, even by Congress. Pelosi said we needed to pass the hc bill so we could find out what’s in it. I can’t wait!
The House bill could not pass until the Stupak amendment passed 240-194, after which the House bill passed 220-215.
Henry Waxman reportedly told Bart Stupak, “but we want to pay for abortions” & “but we think we should.”
I do not know & do not care where in the bill the provisions that Stupak, Kildee, Lipinski, Donnelly, Dahlkemper, Driehaus & Berry object to & that Waxman reportedly supports regarding federally-funded abortion. I trust moderate & pro-life Democrats more than I trust liberal/progressives who I know repeatedly lie. If they object, so do I.
If you are calling me a birther, let me also give another Dem credit. If Obama wasn’t born in the US, Hillary would have made that announcement 3 yrs. ago.
Steve
March 17th, 2010
5:04 pm
I wonder if there are any “birthers” posting here. There has to be. LOL!!!!! I cant think of a more moronic group of people than “birthers”.
Linda
March 17th, 2010
5:31 pm
Keep@4:17, Why are you picking on CEOs with health care insurance companies? Don’t the CEOs of all major companies make millions?
Why are you picking on health care insurance companies? Don’t all 68 types of insurance companies make a profit? What about vehicle, hazard & life insurance companies?
Why are you picking on the health care insurance industry which ranks 86th in profits over book publishers (38th), specialty eateries (71st) & home furnishing stores (84th)? Everyone, by law, has a right to health care & a right to buy care insurance, but companies don’t have the rights to make a profit?
Why are you picking on what we spend on health care insurance (less than 5%) rather than what we spend on medicine (10%), doctors (21%), & hospitals (31%)?
I’ll help you answer my questions.
Part of the strategy of this adm for every agenda they have is to create a crisis, an emergency, victims & demons. With cap & trade, the ice caps were melting, the seas were rising, polar bears were dying, all due to our breaths, the science was settled & if you’re a denier, you’re a flatter.
With health care, people without health insurance were dying in the streets & the bad guys were the health care insurers.
Same old, same old.
Linda
March 17th, 2010
5:35 pm
Steve@5:04, Read the last sentence of my post @ 4:59 an inch from your post @ 5:04.
Did you read my post to you @ 3:54?
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 17th, 2010
7:05 pm
KeepUp-no, you don’t understand anything compared to what you pretend to in hyperbole. Profit is the basis for which anyone does anything-with the exception of government-and that is because they don’t bankrupt even in the most liberal of fiscal standards.
As far as why interject the argument of understanding the cost and it’s irony here-its because you talk about denying people health care as a Right throughout multiple statements. There is no right to health care. Its a cost-benefit-and you talk about the cost benefit as a pro in using abortions, but you have no clue on cost-benefit in assessing a preexisting condition. That is a warped mindset.
You worry about the baby with birth defects in being offered limited health coverage, or at a higher cost due to known issues, but you were fine with killing that baby, or fetus as you call it a few months before in the name of saving a buck.
FYI-for someone who supposedly knows the health care market, people aren’t flatly denied all health care for preexisting conditions. They are offered either:
A) Limited or Restricted coverage that either caps, has a high deductible, or altogether excludes any coverage that relates to the condition.
B) Denied for specific general plans where their condition would exceed that plans intention.
BUT-that isn’t to say coverage isn’t at all available to them.
The bottom line is, in evaluating costs and entitlements, which is how you view health care-clinical care is not reduced because you control premium rates. That actually increases costs for all.
It is not reduced because you force insurers to carry people with known high costs, or otherwise referred to as preexisting conditions, without them paying hardly anymore. That increases costs for all.
You keep referencing that abortions is not in the bill, and that is correct on it’s face. BUT-subsidies for low-income people to purchase coverage that does cover abortions is. That is a way of hiding it by way of the middle man-or woman.
No one will pretend that our Health Care system cannot be improved upon, and that includes deregulation of Insurance WITH proper oversight. You cannot, however, increase coverage for people who otherwise cannot afford it without decreasing the costs in health coverage. Talking about that coverage as a right of anyone in this discussion is enough to conclude that you are referencing the current health care bill.
Open mouth, insert foot
March 17th, 2010
7:14 pm
Hmmm, let the so-called conservatives tell it and the government shouldn’t be involved in anything. You cry about this health care legislation infringing on your right to “choose” your coverage. No vouchers for schools thus limiting school “choice” for your kids. Taxes, taxes and more taxes, infringing on your “right” to keep your money and do as you see fit with it. But all in the same breath, you want to strip a woman’s RIGHT to CHOOSE what she does with her womb. And you wonder why free-thinking individuals despise you? You wonder why you’re labeled the biggest hypocrites known to man?
Keep up the good fight!
March 17th, 2010
7:17 pm
bd….you really are out of touch with reality. You obviously have no ability to follow the thoughts. You assume 1st that health care is not a right. It may not be but then neither was voting before 1776. So perhaps it is one that should exist as it does in other civilized countries.
Your abortion argument presumes a definition of life and does not do justice to the complications or the inconsistencies of your own cost assessment. You can read for yourself.
You can however with a single payer system provide that everyone has coverage and that costs are fairly distributed. You can however remove the burden on hospitals to “subsidize” those who happen to stumble into their waiting rooms but can afford to pay for services by effectively spreading those costs in an efficient manner and avoiding bankruptcy.
And, as the bill does, subsidize the cost of the policy for the non-abortion services and allow a separate premium to be paid for abortion services.
You apparently do not understand a system that takes your money first and then, after the fact, when a claim is filed finds a “pre-existing condition” or other manner to deny coverage.
Again, your arrogance at presuming you know better than I about health issues is just pure stupidity.
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 17th, 2010
7:43 pm
Your example of a preexisting condition, the burden would be on the insurance company to prove you had prior knowledge of the condition when you applied for the coverage. Which in part, would mean you lied on your application for insurance, which in most states and insurance companies, can void your entire policy. Are insurance companies at times unscrupulous on using this item to their benefit? Yes. Are people intentionally deceiving on their application to avoid the disclosure of the condition? Yes. Is the answer to let the government run health care? Only if you are a fool.
To compare us to the other “civilized countries” that afford health care as a subsidized and socialized right-which country would you go to if you needed health care that is recognized as providing the best system in the world? You don’t reform what we have by changing the control, you reform it by lowering cost.
“And, as the bill does, subsidize the cost of the policy for the non-abortion services and allow a separate premium to be paid for abortion services.”
Ever heard of the 1st Amendment? It is one’s religious right to abstain and disagree with the practice of abortion, whether you are pro-choice, or pro-life. That subsidy indirectly removes the choice for all, and takes people’s money to fund a practice that some consider against their religious belief. To force someone to participate in an act which violates their religious belief is a violation of the 1st Amendment, even if the act is only to fund it.
“You can however with a single payer system provide that everyone has coverage and that costs are fairly distributed. You can however remove the burden on hospitals to “subsidize” those who happen to stumble into their waiting rooms but can afford to pay for services by effectively spreading those costs in an efficient manner and avoiding bankruptcy.”
There is no free lunch. We still pay for it. And how do you mean exactly by costs that are fairly distributed? According to Congress and the POTUS, my premiums will go down. How do we interject these people with preexisting conditions and add millions more people into the insurance industry so that it lowers our premiums all the while fairly distributing the costs?
“Again, your arrogance at presuming you know better than I about health issues is just pure stupidity.”
And no, by evidence of your other posts, merely disagreeing with you, and offering facts to back it up is enough for you to consider someone stupid. Maybe the government will offer you subsidized treatment for your God Complex.
Open mouth, insert foot
March 17th, 2010
7:44 pm
NEWSFLASH: The primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action were WHITE WOMEN.
Shut the hell up about affirmative action and blacks already. It’s old and inaccurate.
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 17th, 2010
7:53 pm
“You assume 1st that health care is not a right.”
No more than you assume a fetus is not a living being. Assumptions cut both ways, and because you say Health Care is a right doesn’t make it so.
Health Care requires a doctor. Someone becomes a doctor to make a living. If there is no doctor, or other medical professionals, there is no health care. You cannot guarantee a right which depends on the service of another.
Devil’s advocate says we grant the right to an attorney. In that same right, we state if you cannot afford an attorney-the court will appoint one for you. Does that mean you get to shop for the best paid, or that you even get the best attorney for your predicament. No-that means the government can appoint a general practitioner in some cases to do heart surgery.
They already estimate 1/3rd of Doctors polled will stop practicing medicine due to this legislation. How long will it be before people are getting their government appointed doctors…
Gee….seems like the USSR did this sort of thing back in the day. Great country for those people to live in…
An American
March 17th, 2010
8:16 pm
@ BigDawg…I agree wholeheartedly with you. Keep up the good work!
Linda
March 17th, 2010
8:28 pm
Open mouth@7:14,
* Conservatives aren’t anarchists. We believe in limited fed. govt. & in states’ rights. The fed. govt. spends every penny it taxes & what money it can’t tax, it borrows. What it can’t borrow, it prints.
* When the hc debate started a yr. ago, 85% of Americans had hc insurance & 95% of those were happy with it. Of the 46 M uninsured, 14 M are already eligible for CHIP & Medicaid, at least 10 M are illegal aliens & 18 M are under the age of 34 & probably choose not to buy it. Rather than tweeking the best hc system in the world, the Dems, have to have a complete overhaul & govt. takeover that the vast majority of Americans oppose, to accommodate 2 M people, at the same time increasing mandates on employers & our youth. Whose rights are being infringed upon?
* It’s the Dems who are denying school vouchers for the same reason that it was illegal to teach slaves to read.
* Progressives believe in a intellectual hierarchy that gets to decide what is best for us “uninformed” masses & believe they know what is best for us, including how to spend our money. They don’t. They believe our taxes are their piggy-banks. They aren’t.
* According to our Declaration of Independence, all our rights come from God, not the govt. There is but one God, whether you believe in the teachings of Christianity, Jewish, Mormon or Islam. God does not give the right of abortion.
May God bless you.
not a CT fan
March 17th, 2010
10:56 pm
I think reducing the number of AA babies was an argument for abortion, but the main reason most ‘pro-choicers’ support abortion is money. It’s a lucrative business for those who provide it and it’s a cost savings for the mother who does not want to support her child.
I think that the reason most abortion clinics are in poor neighborhoods is because it may be cheaper to operate there and the zoning laws may be more relaxed. Also may be due to the fact that poor people may not have transportation and the service is more readily available for them.
Did you know Obama and his lovely wife, Michelle, both support partial birth abortion?
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 17th, 2010
11:01 pm
KeepUpTheGoodWork said,”I also see health care abuses like children born with birth defects and denied covered for “pre-existing conditions”
A little quid pro quo-feel free include an example of such a thing happening. A short bit of research of a few state laws state that this is illegal to do so.
Newborns are not under the notion of getting their own health coverage, seeing as they fall in under dependent care. And, according to Illinois state law for example, a newborn cannot be denied health coverage for a preexisting condition so long as they are added to their primary’s carrier policy within 30 days.
As I said, you make arguments with false hyperbole.
George
March 18th, 2010
10:40 am
Will the white anti-abortionist who call pro-abortion groups racist adopt a black child and take them into their white neighborhoods? If they do, they are genuine. If they dont they are as RACIST as the pro-abortion groups.
Matthew Matuse
March 18th, 2010
11:50 am
Ms. Tucker’s article on abortion is forcing me to respond. She asks two questions. Are”racist persuading black women to have abortions?” Think about it. Out of all the abortionist/pro-choicer out there pushing women to do this, some will be racist. So yes. Look at the roots. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who is no longer alive, was a racist. If Ms. Tucker thinks that spirit died with Ms. Sanger, then God bless her. Abortion is offensive on many levels and to ignore the racist element of the practice is naive. Abortions sole purpose is not inherently or entirely racist. Abortionist are equal opportunity life terminators. Although not in the scope of Ms. Tucker’s article, abortionist target young girls, which is why the “clinics” are located near high school and college campuses.
She goes on to ask if there is “some group of grim executioners looking to carry out a shadowy genocide?” Yes! Most definitely! Yes!
BigDawgEatsAlot
March 18th, 2010
12:34 pm
“Abortion is offensive on many levels and to ignore the racist element of the practice is naive. Abortions sole purpose is not inherently or entirely racist. Abortionist are equal opportunity life terminators. Although not in the scope of Ms. Tucker’s article, abortionist target young girls, which is why the “clinics” are located near high school and college campuses.”
Matthew-we cannot take statistics of an argument, or the viewpoints of a single person and characterize it as racist or racism. Well, we can, as Mark Twain said, there are 3 types of lies in this world: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
No one is recruiting black females to become pregnant and then have an abortion. No one is recruiting those who are pregnant to have an abortion. It comes down to who plays the support and guidance role for people who choose to have abortions.
Most I doubt their decision is based upon advice given by a random acquaintance whom they just met at _____ organization. Abortion isn’t an easy choice to make, even for some who choose it. If they are relying on that random support for their chief guidance, therein lies a cultural problem for why they are not relying on family, friends, or spiritual guidance if they are religious.
To imply the system is racist, and basing it off the opinions of a single person, or implying a conspiracy like theory that white people are using it as a legal form of genocide is ludicrous when your sole argument is on statistics. Especially when you only look at the statistics and evaluate it from a quantitative perspective based on race.
With the given data that you are basing your judgments on, the inverse would have to be true. Meaning, if most abortion candidates were white female, it would imply a racist motivation against whites. There is just no facts that corroborate that argument.
Not everything that happens to you is because of race. And oh yea, if a black female does not want to get an abortion, no one is making her.
Billy Peeler
March 21st, 2010
11:34 pm
CT says: “And there are no quotas anywhere”
You’re absolutely correct, Cynthia. Quotas…which are a certain minimum number of minorities that MUST be met…have been outlawed.
Instead, our universities now want to have “critical mass” in their enrollment. Which refers to a certain minimum number of minorities that must be met….uh….never mind.
We’d respect Affirmative Action a hell of a lot more if the proponents weren’t such hypocrites about it. Just tell us we need quotas, and let’s quit trying to bamboozle everybody about it.
Art Vandelay
March 22nd, 2010
4:52 pm
I think you miss a critical point CT. You don’t need to be comparing the rates between white and black but black and brown. This is really more a question of political genocide. The massive influx of hipanics (legal and illegal) and their birth rates are a serious threat to black political power. It is a mistake to believe that the black and hispanic political agenda’s are the same. They are in direct competition with each other. Hispanics almost never end an “unintended pregnancy.” Black leaders need to wake up and understand this threat.
Zoe
March 28th, 2010
9:31 am
IPPF is a racist organisation! They hate white people which is why they predominantly put abortion clinics in black areas. They love black people and provide this wonderful service for them. It is exactly the same as Hitler, he loved the Jews and hated German women which is why he denied German women abortions and only provided abortions for the Jews and others that he loved. So there is a lot in common between the generous IPPF and the beautiful Nazis
Zoe
Eugenic founding organization gives awards to journalists who hide their agenda « Saynsumthn’s Blog
July 19th, 2010
3:58 pm
[...] recipient is Cynthia Tucker who wrote an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, entitled: “Is Abortion a Racist Plot? Of Course Not” . This article , doing the bidding of Planned Parenthood, was clearly written in my opinion, to [...]