Normally, we commemorate events that have had a serious impact on our lives by decades, 25 years, 50 years, etc … yet we are forced by a concerted effort of opposition by both religious bigots and misogynists to commemorate the 49th anniversary of Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton; this is because these landmark SCOTUS decisions will not make it to 50 years … to say I am furious is an understatement … the fact that Roe vs Wade is being overturned while the overwhelming majority of Americans want it be kept in place is just another example of the attack on democracy in the US in this case by an unelected Supreme Court and the complete failure of Congress to actually abide by the wishes of the majority.
According to CNN’s Ariel Edwards-Levy:
“Most Americans oppose overturning the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade precedent, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, with a majority saying that if the decision was vacated, they’d want to see their own state move toward more permissive abortion laws.
Just 30% of Americans say they’d like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe vs. Wade decision, with 69% opposed — a finding that’s largely consistent both with other recent polling and with historical trends. In a set of three surveys taken last autumn by different pollsters, support for overturning Roe vs. Wade stood between 20% and 31%, depending on the precise framing of the question. And in CNN’s polling dating back to 1989, the share of the public in favor of completely overturning Roe has never risen above 36%.
Fifty-nine percent of Americans say that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned, they’d like their state to set laws that are more permissive than restrictive toward abortion, a preference that stands in opposition to the prediction most make that abortions would likely be restricted or banned in the areas where they live. Another 40% say they’d like their state to set more restrictive laws.”
But, my fury goes well beyond Roe vs Wade being overturned. I’ve been thinking about violence against women often recently and what constitutes it and what is its cause. It is often treated in an individual manner, like domestic violence and a random sexual assault or violent attack on women and as murder of a women; this treatment leads to the individualisation of these things rather than viewing them as a societal and social issue. These realities are often treated as separate incidences rather than as part of parcel of a social problem. Why does this happen? How can we prevent it? Violence of the nature that women face in our societies is a persistent problem and all the laws that have been fought for and passed have not eliminated it.
What we need to understand is this oppression of women and violence against women derives from the political, economic and social needs of the capitalist economic system. Moreover, there are cultural issues deriving from religious belief that are maintained if deemed useful to the system itself. So while there are contradictions between the needs of the system and the social, religious and cultural beliefs that people have, there are things that remain as places of struggle not only between the ruling class and the working class, but within the ruling class itself (or those that perceive themselves to be part of the ruling class). So, while women’s oppression exists prior to capitalism, the form of our oppression differs due to the needs of the economic, political and social system of the time and changes over time to accommodate the needs of the system and well as ideological perspectives of those that live under it.
As such, while this violence against women appears personal, individual and private, it is actually social and maintained socially. We also need to recognise that violence itself is not individualised, that there is state violence against women. This is done through legislation, actions of the state authorities themselves (e.g., by the police and in criminal justice proceedings concerned with sexual assault, rape, and violence itself, like domestic abuse and femicide). Moreover, open racism and misogyny by right-wing and reactionary politicians serves to divide and poison our communities and also provides justification for the continuing actions of individual violent men. While laws allowing the murder of a woman for infidelity have been eliminated in the US, the fact that is that the majority of state legislatures controlled by the right are dominated by reactionary men (and women who serve their interests). They are working very hard to overturn or undermine protections women have won over decades of struggle.
How else could a law in Ohio order that doctors transplant ectopic pregnancies be into the cervix? Not only is this medically impossible, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of women’s reproductive organs. Forcing women to use contraceptives to get welfare benefits is violence against women, trying to change laws on rape so that rape is only “stranger” rape, is an attempt to allow for rape in marriage or rape for women in relationships … as though our consent to have sex is permanent after we enter a marriage or a relationship. This not only treats women as property, but is an attempt to punish women that have sex outside of marriage.
This is not only happening in the US, it is part of the rise of the right internationally. Even the attempt at a UN resolution declaring rape as a weapon of war and establishing a commission to monitor it, was weakened due to threats of a veto by the US under Donald Trump because it mentioned timely assistance for the victims of sexual violence during war because to them, it implied a right of abortion. I strongly believe that the upcoming overturn of Roe vs Wade will be another example of state violence against women.
The reality as to why this continues relates to the needs of the system and the perception of women’s role in that system. This is the case with racism, disablism, as well as misogyny. Moreover, these oppressions create a web of oppressions impacting women differently.
In the case of women, there is an underlying social ideology that women are inferior to men intellectually and physically (rarely expressed as crudely as when I was young, my favourite expression from that time was “that a women’s place is in the kitchen and the bedroom” … I wonder who cleans their toilets?!). That somehow our role is to serve and make children, and as such that our contributions to societies are natural (that is what women are supposed to do) rather than social. The individualisation and personalisation exist to hide the fact that this is social oppression and violence. We are objectified as humans. We are treated as children unable to make our own decisions about our own lives and bodies and we are treated as the property of men. This is a wonderful use of divide and rule in an economic system where the overwhelming majority of men cannot fulfil the fantasy of everyone can make it in this great democratic economic system.
As such our economic political and social contributions are minimised, our social roles in the home are deemed natural and devalued even though our economies and societies cannot function without it (i.e., why should our employers pay for something they get for free — which will impact profits), and our jobs are treated as unskilled labour (under the assumption that if women do it for free at home, then anyone can do it) and this is then reflected in our wages. The fact that so many women work as key and essential labour but are woefully underpaid and deeply disrespected is infuriating. That so much of our oppression became extremely obvious during the covid pandemic led many to hope that needed change will occur. However, the changes that became obvious such as the importance of childcare, the importance of women in keeping the society going as key workers has yet to manifest in change.
This economic reality means we are more dependent on welfare benefits (if they exist). We rarely get child care support unless we can afford to pay for it, and are still responsible for primary social reproduction at home. These responsibilities mean that we are often trapped in part-time employment with commensurate pensions (if we have them) which are lower due to our lower incomes. While education of women has increased all over the world, this is not reflected in the jobs we hold; the majority of women are still trapped in what is called “traditional women’s labour.”
While many women in advanced capitalist countries believe that this can be overcome with more legislation and laws (and there have certainly been gains won by struggle leading to reforms), the reality is that women are still treated unequally. Rather than being treated as valued members of our societies we are still fighting for basic rights relating to economic needs, such as equal pay for equal work, the recognition of equal pay for comparable work (due to different access for women to jobs that traditionally are men’s work), the right to better wages and working conditions, even the right to unionise, and access to child care and maternity benefits.
Overturn of Roe vs Wade
But even most fundamental of basic rights that women around the world are still are fighting for and which are under attack is the right to our bodily autonomy at all levels. While there have been notable victories in Ireland and Argentina after years of struggle, women in the US and Poland are fighting against concerted efforts to overturn abortion rights; rights that we thought that we had won. Yet those basic rights that we have fought for still continue to be undermined, Once Roe is overturned by the SCOTUS later this year, abortion will be made illegal in 26 states due to a combination of trigger laws set to overturn abortion rights when Roe is overturned, a series of Pre-Roe anti-abortion laws and a whole raft of new laws that have been created to try and overturn Roe.
There does not seem to be much appetite by the right-wing SCOTUS to interpret the Mississippi anti-abortion law narrowly and allow the Mississippi Law to ban abortions after 15 weeks to stand, which will narrow the Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992) decisions, but not completely overturn them. So while Justice Roberts has argued for this narrow decision accepting the Mississippi Law at 15 weeks at the oral arguments hearing the case; it is abundantly clear that 3 of the other right-wing judges (Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch) want to overturn Roe vs Wade; perhaps I jumping to a conclusion about Coney Barrett due to her repeated queries on adoption rather than abortion and I am being unfair to her (no, I am not serious here) and there is Kavanaugh who by no account seems a supporter of abortion rights. Let’s be real, his failure to keep his promise that he is not inherently opposed to abortion which got him his seat on the SCOTUS due to Senator Susan Collins’ incredible cowardice will have little or no repercussions for him – lying is a long-established art which seems to have no repercussions for the wealthy and powerful. Even conflicts of interests and private benefit and refusal to recuse yourself from hearing a case seems to be irrelevant at the SCOTUS something which Justice Clarence Thomas appears to have done and nothing has happened to him.
This fact that Roe vs Wade is in danger of being overturned is, in itself, incredible. In general, the SCOTUS does not simply overturn previous decisions. They tend to try to mitigate the impact of previous decisions when making a judgement about a case rather than overturning a decision. A comparison was actually discussed at the Oral Arguments on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It was raised by Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart who compared the harm caused by Roe vs Wade to that of Plessy vs Ferguson SCOTUS decision of (1896) part of the post-Reconstruction attack on the civil rights of former slaves which allowed Jim Crow legislation on the basis that the segregation laws being passed throughout the former Confederacy were legal and did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection under the Law Clauses of the 14th Amendment as long as these facilities were equal. This grotesque cynicism was not only done by Scott Stewart, a similar argument to justify overturning Roe was articulated by conservative SCOTUS justices. The fallaciousness of this argument is amazing (I would say shocking, but really, I expect misogyny from these people as they exhibit it so often); Plessy vs Ferguson destroyed the possibility of equal civil rights for former slaves and their descendants; Roe vs Wade extended women’s civil rights to determine their reproduction. How are these comparable?
They are only comparable in a universe where somehow a foetus is a human being whose civil rights (remember the US doesn’t care about Human Rights, they are irrelevant) can be harmed. But a foetus is only a potential human being who doesn’t have guaranteed civil or human rights until it is born. However, it is questionable whether these justices believe that a women’s civil rights to determine her reproduction actually is legitimate once they become pregnant. In their minds, a foetus has civil rights of its own which stand in contradiction to those of the pregnant mother.
Since the SCOTUS normally makes decision based on precedent (stare decisis) rather than whether a decision itself is “a bad one”, the issue of what the current members of the SCOTUS hold with respect to precedent has become very relevant. Several of the right-wing judges seem sceptical about precedent which means they are more likely to overturn Roe on the basis of being a “bad decision” rather than using precedents to determine its constitutionality.
Interestingly, none of the recognition of harm that was done by Plessy has also been raised against another appalling SCOTUS decision, Buck vs Bell (1927) which primarily impacted upon disabled women, women of colour and poor women. This decision derived out of Eugenics Sterilization Law that were passed in the US in the early part of the 20th century which allowed the forced sterilisation of “the unfit” and “intellectually disabled” and which were used against women in prisons and state mental institutions (who winds up in prisons and mental institutions in the US?). This specific case related to the laws of the State of Virginia. This appalling decision which impacted disabled women, women of colour and poor women has not been overturned by the SCOTUS either and had to be addressed individually in the various states, The cynical use of Plessy while ignoring compulsory sterilisation laws which given the criminalisation of poverty, racism and disablism in the US impacted disproportionately on women of colour, disabled women and illiterate working-class women speaks volumes.
The struggle over Reproductive Rights and Civil Rights for Women
I was born in New York in 1960, as such, throughout my adult life, abortion has been legal in the US due to the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decisions of Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton in 1973. New York had already legalised abortion in in 1970 under Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller.
The shift of the Republican Party to a solidly anti-abortion position came later due to political decisions shifting the party towards “Conservatism” as a way of building an electoral base. While Nixon had already used a similar strategy to woo Catholics to vote for his Presidency, it was the shift towards “family values” and “conservative” ideology which enabled the recruitment of anti-abortion fundamentalists Protestants to the cause that shifted the whole of the Republican party to the right and towards an anti-abortion position. Ronald Reagan’s incorporation of the Religious Right into the Republican Party’s base enabled him to win the Presidency and this shift led the Republican Party way past Conservatism to the right.
The reality is that while abortion rights were granted by the SCOTUS decisions against laws in Texas and Georgia, it was years of women fighting for their reproductive rights including open legal access to birth control and abortion along with the senseless and unnecessary deaths of women in illegal and unsafe backstreet abortions that provided the impetus. The demands of the women’s movement and the rising consciousness among women was essential in this struggle. Both Hawaii and New York State had already decriminalised abortion before Roe and Doe.
We need to remember that the right of marital privacy to obtain and use birth control was only passed in the US as a whole as a result of the landmark Griswold vs Connecticut (1965) decision. The use of the 14th Amendment clauses on due process and equal protection under the law the basis of the Loving vs Virginia decision (1967) which overturned the legality of bans against inter-racial marriage and then Eisenstadt vs Baird (1972) allowed unmarried couples to use and purchase birth control all happened within a short period. These SCOTUS decisions didn’t happen in a vacuum, they are the result of political struggle and demands, just like Brown vs the Board of Education (1954) decision which rejected the separate but equal qualification upholding segregation and Jim Crow legalised in Plessy. The Civil Rights Act(s), the Voting Rights Act and even Title IX funding were victories brought about due to the civil rights movement and women’s movement. These victories were won because we fought for them, it is not due to the generous nature of the ruling class and its politicians. Moreover, the existence of these Judicial Decisions and Congressional Legislation did not automatically eliminate attacks on voting rights, and civil rights; this was part of a long and violent period of struggle in which the state used the police and other forces against campaigners for civil rights. We are again in a period of right-wing reaction where civil rights gains are being deliberately undermined by right-wing politicians to serve their own interests and of those that continue to elect them.
One of the biggest problems that still exists is that the manner in which abortion rights are treated in the US is as negative rights, so you formally have the civil right to do something, governments or other citizens cannot prevent you from exercising that right; however, they do not have to facilitate it by providing you with the means to obtain that right or by ensuring that you actually have the means to actually do something to utilise that right. That would be a positive right and requires government action to ensure that you can exercise it. Examples of ensuring that there is a positive right in the context of reproductive rights would be to ensure access to a wide range of free contraceptives (both short and long-lasting) for women to use, covering costs for all who want to have abortions so they would be free at the point of demand. This is why much of the struggles over abortion rights is concerned with not only making abortion legal and safe, but also free at the point of demand. Covering costs which actually impact upon choices you want to make is essential in a capitalist system where your ability to do something requires money to obtain things. We need recognise that all women’s decisions with respect to our reproduction are constrained choices; they are constrained by income and future income, ability or not to work, availability of child care, and religious and cultural beliefs; these choices are constrained by the laws of the country you live in as well as the norms and mores of the society. Enabling the removal of these constraints as much as possible is the point behind reproductive justice while recognising that our choices are not all the same.
The Post Roe and Doe struggle over abortion rights
From the SCOTUS decisions in 1973 of Roe vs Wade and Doe versus Bolton onwards, women’s right to abortion has come under attack, a lot of it extremely violent not only against women but against those doctors and health workers that were ensuring our access to a guaranteed civil right. These attacks include violence (bombings and destruction of abortion clinics), the murder and assault on abortion providers and staff at abortion centres (e.g., David Gunn the first doctor murdered by anti-abortionists in 1993, and Dr Tiller one of the few doctors doing late-term abortions assassinated in his church in 2009). There have been attempts to make procedures illegal, laws trying to reduce availability of abortion services, unnecessary procedures (e.g., sonograms prior to the abortion adding unnecessary costs), unnecessary demands on the nature of abortion centres (see TRAP laws), parental consent, forced waiting periods, and demanding that doctors providing abortions have admitted privileges at local hospitals, the most recent tactic after the failed TRAP laws, are the foetal “heartbeat” bills which try to prevent abortion if foetuses have a “heartbeat” which are argued to be as early as 6 weeks (given there is no heart at 6 weeks, it is impressive that it can be beating).
In 1976, the Hyde Amendment (named after its sponsor Rep. Henry Hyde) was attached to a budget bill relating to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It prevented the direct spending of federal funds for abortions unless the women’s life was endangered and she wouldn’t survive the pregnancy. This version of the amendment to the budget remained in force from 1981 until 1993, when under the Clinton Administration added rape and incest to the conditions where federal funds could directly be used for an abortion as part of Medicaid. The Hyde Amendment has appeared in every federal budget since 1981. Those that are dependent upon direct Federal money for healthcare could not use that money to obtain an abortion. This has impacted all Native Americans, members of the Armed Forces, Federal Employees, Volunteers in Government Programmes (e.g., Peace Corps, US AID). Differences between state law relating to the use of funding for Medicaid has meant that in different states, abortions for those on welfare and medical coverage could or could not be obtained. As such, those dependent on benefits, those with lower incomes and the working poor, and those without medical coverage due to its linkage to employment had to pay for abortions out of their own pockets – this has impacted women of colour far more deeply than white women due to the reality that their incomes are far lower than white women due to racism, entrapment in “traditional” women’s labour which pays less and lower levels of accumulated wealth.
The fact that the Hyde Amendment has appeared as an amendment to all Federal budgets since 1981 and has never been removed has meant that while women have the constitutional right to abortion, their ability to access and exercise that right has never been guaranteed for all American women. That often depended on the laws in the states where they lived and whether Medicaid could be used to cover abortions there beyond the regulations first concerning the life of the mother (and then later rape and incest). Something being legal without providing financial means to ensure that you can pay for that, means it remains inaccessible for many. Moreover, the grotesque failure and cowardice of several successive Congresses to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act (introduced and failing to pass in 1993 and every 2 years since) codifying the right of abortion into federal law has now led to yet another mad scramble to pass this federal legislation which will once again fail as Roe vs Wade is being overturned.
Reproductive Justice
Unfortunately, the Roe and Doe SCOTUS decisions has impacted women in a differential manner. The failure to eliminate the Hyde Amendment is a stain on all politicians that claim to support women’s reproductive rights. The failures that have occurred are due to two things, 1) reproductive rights have been treated as negative rights; and 2) the lack of solidarity between the liberal feminist movement and movements of women of colour still fighting to ensure that access to reproductive rights applied equally to all women. The reality of historical and current differences in class, the impact of racism and disablism, and the roles of culture, and religious differences have always meant that women have different needs and desires with respect to their reproductive choices.
Understanding the central role of racism in American history and its impact upon the economic status of people of colour, it should come as no surprise that women of colour have had different treatment to white women when it came to their reproductive decisions. The genocide of Native Americans in the US included the forced sterilisation of Native American women following childbirth. Forced sterilisation was also a tool against black and Latina women, as well as the disabled and white working-class women. While wealthier white women struggled for voluntary sterilisation without their husband’s permission, women of colour were fighting against forced sterilisation.
The relationship between the early birth control movement in the early 20th century and the Eugenics movement in the US also gave rise to the differential treatment of women’s reproduction. The eugenics movement was concerned with “the betterment” of the human race and essentially its ideology linked poverty to the number of children that a woman had, but held those that they considered to be undermining the human race were of the wrong class, had physical and mental impairments, and were of the wrong race, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Racism, class, and disability were embedded in the ideology of the early birth control movement linked to the Eugenics movement.
As such, the fundamental assumptions of eugenics related human economic and social betterment with having the “correct characteristics” deemed to better the human race. For women of colour, the disabled and white poor women, it was advocated that fewer children were a fundamental part of the betterment of the human race. Eugenic Sterilisation Laws began to be passed in the US; the first was in 1907 in Indiana and the targets initially were the disabled in state institutions, criminals in prisons. Understanding that many poor people were illiterate and ignorant, it is pretty obvious that those that came in contact with the state could be endangered if they in anyway became dependent on the state for funds or for health care in any form. While initially targeting those in prison (both men and women; do keep in mind the criminalisation of poverty, racism and the role of the criminal justice system and penitentiary system itself) and those in state institutions (e.g., mental health institutions) these forced eugenic sterilisation were used as weapons against those that were not seen to be part of the American ideal as advanced by social Darwinists and Eugenicists. In 1924, the Virginia Eugenic Sterilization Law allowing for compulsory sterilisation of the feeble, disabled, and unfit was brought to the SCOTUS resulting in the decision mentioned above, Buck vs Bell (1927) which allowed the forced sterilisation of “the unfit” and “intellectually disabled.” To this day, this law has not been overturned by the SCOTUS and had to be addressed individually by the various states when the extent of sterilisation of disabled people, women prisoners, Native Americans and Latinas became known.
Understanding the role of criminalisation of poverty in the US, disablism and racism in the US, there is no question that this decision allowed eugenic and compulsory sterilisation in the US to be used as a weapon against people of colour, the disabled and the poor especially if they were going to cost the states money to cover welfare, health and social care. Moreover, the Eugenics movement encouraged wealthier white women to have more children to improve the human race; which, of course, weakened white women’s control over their bodies as well as voluntary sterilisation required the permission of their husbands. Poverty and dependence on the social welfare state led to states trying to attempt that those welfare would have fewer children; some states tried to mandate the usage of contraceptives. As such, how women were (and still are) treated relates to class position, racism, and whether they had physical and mental impairments.
Differences between the treatment of women in terms of reproductive rights were built into this birth control movement and these played out historically in the different needs and desires of women. The issues of choosing when, if and how many children women want to have, has two sides. As such, it is not only the needs of those women that do not want to have children that are relevant; we must also recognise that women that want children want to choose when and how many. When we talk about reproductive rights, we must always recognise the differences between women and we must recognise the injustice in the ability to access these rights.
The relationship between class and oppression and the interrelationship between racism, class, gender and disability must be a central point of unity such that reproductive rights are understood as reproductive justice. If we do not unite and fight together, we can never hope to succeed. It is as simple as that.
What can you do to help?
- Remember that women must be leading this movement and this requires the participation and leadership of all women, but it must be under the control not of the wealthier white women; the voices of women of colour and disabled women must be heard and acknowledged in any struggle.
- We must stand together across movements, we must fight all oppression together.
- We must help build and extend an abortion support network which is already under construction; this must covers all those that want abortions and we must continue the struggle together with all sisters to fight in solidarity together for all rights. Abortion support networks are starting up; donate to them if you can afford it. Women throughout the south and the Midwest will need to travel (if they are able to take off work which is no guarantee if they are in part-time employment) … ensure that they have the means and logistics to make that journey. See if you can help these abortion support groups logistically organise. This will be a lot of work that needs to be done.
- The protests and the movement are continuing … participate, be there in solidarity with women. Don’t try to lead if you are not a woman; you stand in solidarity. We understand our oppression and our choices far better than anyone.
- If you are not in the US, you can hold meetings and invite speakers from organisations supporting reproductive justice in the US to explain what the impact of the overturn of Roe vs Wade will have. Hold protests against the failure of the legislature to protect women’s women’s reproductive rights, be prepared to be out on the day that the decision of the SCOTUS is announced.
- Put pressure on your state legislatures and governors to not only ensure that abortion remains safe and legal in your state, but to also allow women from other states to access medicaid funded abortion irrespective of residency … this not only means that women can get safe and legal abortions, but so that they can access these abortions without needing massive amounts of money. Fight to eliminate red-tape which forces women to have to wait unnecessarily for unnecessary tests and wait times between going to the abortion centres and actually being able to get an abortion. See if that red tape can be eliminated and the laws against abortion rights in various states can be overturned.
- There is no question that the misogynists will be feeling far more emboldened and powerful, see if local abortions centres need volunteer escorts if there is a history of harassment of women in the area.
- On a national level, protests, direct actions to force the federal government to pass a federal law protecting women’s rights to abortion. The elimination of Roe and a strong reaction may get them off their arses. Also, vote out any member of the Congress that opposes women’s reproductive justice … get them out of power, they don’t represent you … this will take time but what is there to lose.
- Participate in protests that will be happening, the struggle is on the ground as much as it be in the legislatures and through assisting women to get abortions. Join the protests, help them build by getting information out beforehand. Massive pressure will build solidarity and will hopefully force state legislatures to change their positions and get the Congress to move to protect abortion rights and this time make it available for all women; fight for free access to a wide variety of contraceptives so that women can actually choose to if, when and how many children they want.. We are the majority not the misogynists. Fight to ensure that all women’s voices are heard, that we join all the movements to fight in solidarity together — we must unite in solidarity to fight effectively.
- Additionally, fight to remove the constraints that women have to actually make reproductive choices, this is not only about birth control and abortion, it has to do with the economic, social and political impact of women’s oppression in a capitalist society.
Also if you have some extra money, make a donation to these groups fighting for reproductive justice:
In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda is a Reproductive Justice partnership of eight Black women’s Reproductive Justice organizations. In Our Own Voice amplifies the voices of Black women at national and regional levels in the ongoing fight to secure Reproductive Justice for all.
URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity builds power and sustains a young people’s movement for reproductive justice by centering the leadership of young people of color who are women, queer, trans, non-binary, and low-income.
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) builds power with AAPI women and girls. Using a reproductive justice framework, NAPAWF elevates AAPI women and girls to impact policy and drive systemic change in the United States.
SisterSong is the largest national multi-ethnic Reproductive Justice Collective. SisterSong is a thought leader, movement voice, ambassador, and organizer, and seeks to improve institutional policies and systems that impact the reproductive lives of marginalized communities.
National Network of Abortion Funds builds power with members to remove financial and logistical barriers to abortion access by centering people who have abortions and organizing at the intersections of racial, economic, and reproductive justice.
