Guest Editorial by Jill C. of Brilliant at Breakfast
In Florida, state Senate Democrats are just barely blocking (for now) an abortion restriction advocated by Republicans that would force women to have, pay for, and view, an ultrasound image before having an abortion.
In Oklahoma, it is already law that women are forced to undergo and view such an ultrasound, along with listening to a detailed description of the embryo or fetus. In a completely inconsistent addendum, a doctor is permitted to withhold information about any defects that are revealed in such an ultrasound.
In Virginia, new budgetary measures cut Medicaid funding for abortions, even if the woman’s life is in danger.
In Nebraska, a medically unsupported “pain provision” bars all abortions after 20 weeks and requires women seeking abortions before then to undergo a mental health evaluation.
In Kansas, only a gubernatorial veto stands between women’s right to self-determination and being reported to the state for having abortions.
Why now? Foes of women’s sovereignty over their own bodies have been working on abortion restrictions for decades. But after standing pat during the Bush years, perhaps thinking that sooner or later George W. Bush would give them the magic prize they’ve coveted for so long, all of a sudden state after state is passing abortion restrictions that make very clear the misogynistic leanings of these states’ legislatures. Forcing women to have invasive vaginal ultrasounds? Forcing them to view images? Mental health evaluations?
But is it just about misogyny? Or does it have something to do with the pee-in-the-pants terror of the teabag movement at the inevitable end of white majority that’s coming in this country?
Let’s look at the populations of the above-mentioned states and the percentages of abortion by race in them, shall we?
The following 2007-2008 figures are fromStatehealthfacts.org:
FLORIDA: 62% white, 15% black, 20% Hispanic, and 3% other.
OKLAHOMA: 66% white, 8% black, 8% Hispanic, and 16% other.
VIRGINIA: 67% white, 19% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% other.
NEBRASKA: 84% white, 4% black, 8% Hispanic, and 3% other.
KANSAS: 80% white, 6% black, 9% Hispanic, and 5% other.
All states that are overwhelmingly white.
Now let’s look at some states WITHOUT this kind of abortion restrictions, from the Godless Heathen Liberal Northeast, plus California:
NEW YORK: 60% white, 15% black, 17% Hispanic, and 8% other.
NEW JERSEY: 59% white, 13% black, 17% Hispanic, and 10% other.
MASSACHUSETTS: 80% white, 6% black, 7% Hispanic, and 6% other.
CALIFORNIA: 43% white, 6% black, 37% Hispanic, and 14% other.
With the exception of Massachusetts, these states all have larger minority populations — and no move to restrict abortions.
Now let’s look at the racial distribution of abortions in the states cited above that have recently instituted, or are about to institute, restrictions. These figures are from 2006 and are from CDC statistics:
FLORIDA: Not reported
OKLAHOMA: Not reported
VIRGINIA: 57.3% White, 36.5% Black, 5.3% Hispanic
NEBRASKA: Not reported
KANSAS: 77.3% White, 17.2% Black, 4.4% Hispanic
It’s clear that the states with overwhelmingly white populations are the states instituting abortion restrictions. And while the percentages of abortions in the two states that reported to the CDC are not proportional to the racial groups’ representation, it’s clear that in these states, a larger percentage of White women are having abortions than their Black and Hispanic counterparts.
Just for fun, let’s take a look at Arizona, where the population is 58% White, 4% Black, 31% Hispanic, and 8% Other. White women in Arizona have 76.8% of the abortions in that state. So where does Arizona law stand on abortion? You guessed it:
Arizona has not repealed its pre-Roe abortion ban, which is unconstitutional and unenforceable.
The ban provides that any person who supplies to a woman any substance or employs other means with the intent to induce an abortion, unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life, will be imprisoned for two to five years. A woman who submits to the use of any means with the intent to cause an abortion, unless necessary to preserve her life, will be imprisoned for one to five years. Any person who advertises abortion services is guilty of a misdemeanor. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3603 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977), 13-3604 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977), 13-3605 (Enacted 1901; Last Renumbered 1977).
Arizona outlaws a safe second-trimester abortion procedure with no exception to protect a woman’s health. H.B. 2400, 49th Leg., 2009 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2009) (Enacted 2009) (to be codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01).
The Arizona law makes the provision of certain previability, second-trimester abortion procedures a felony and imposes a criminal penalty of imprisonment for up to two years and/or fines including statutory damages of three times the cost of the abortion unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of the woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. H.B. 2400, 49th Leg., 2009 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2009) (Enacted 2009) (to be codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01).
In 1997, a court held that an earlier version of Arizona’s ban was unconstitutional because it was void for vagueness, was an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose, and had no exception to preserve the woman’s health. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-3603.01 (Enacted 1997). The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement. Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz., Inc. v. Woods, 982 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Ariz. 1997). In 2009, the Arizona legislature enacted an amended, enforceable version of the ban. H.B. 2400, 49th Leg., 2009 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2009) (Enacted 2009) (to be codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-3603.01).
Arizona has a partially unconstitutional and unenforceable law requiring that a woman may not obtain an abortion until at least 24 hours after the attending physician or the referring physician tells her, orally and in person: (1) the name of the physician who will provide the abortion; (2) the nature of the proposed procedure; (3) the immediate and long-term medical risks of the procedure; (4) the alternatives to the procedure; (5) the probable gestational age of the fetus; (6) the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the fetus; and (7) the medical risks of carrying the pregnancy to term.
In addition, at least 24 hours prior to the abortion, the attending physician, a referring physician, another qualified physician, a physician’s assistant, a nurse, a psychologist, or a licensed behavioral health professional must deliver to the woman, orally and in person, a state-mandated lecture that includes: (1) that medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; (2) that the “father” is liable for child support even if he has offered to pay for the abortion; (3) that public and private agencies and services are available to assist the woman during her pregnancy and after the birth of her child if she chooses not to have an abortion; and (4) that she can withhold or withdraw her consent to the abortion at any time without affecting her right to future care or treatment and without the loss of any public benefits. H.B. 2564, 49th Leg., 2009 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2009) (Enacted 2009) (to be codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. A 36-2153).
It’s no accident that Arizona, a state with one of the largest proportions of Hispanic residents but one where White women have over three-quarters of the abortions, has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. It’s no accident either that these restrictions on abortions are being implemented in majority-White states at the same time as the conservatives of those states are having apoplexy about immigration.
It’s not about Teh Baybeeeeezzzzzz, and it’s not about human life. It’s about forced childbearing for White women, instituted by men who are terrified of losing their White male sovereignty into this country, by turning women into unthinking, unfeeling, nonhuman vessels for their fears and their loathing.
this isn’t really surprising…
there have been several right-wing commentators who have come out and blatantly said that white’s need to start producing more children to offset the rise in minority populations… they’ve been saying it plainly for the last several years — John Gibson, formerly of Faux News said it repeatedly on his “show”… pretty sure Pat Buchanon, Hannity, Limbaugh et all have said the same things repeatedly as well.
Props to Jill C…sobering, impressive…
Fascism…
Wow. I don’t know what else to say.
Jill,
From the first (population) set of stats:
VIRGINIA: 67% white, 19% black, 7% Hispanic, and 7% other
From the second (abortion) set:
VIRGINIA: 57.3% White, 36.5% Black, 5.3% Hispanic
It seems to me that proportionately fewer white women are having abortions.
Same goes for Kansas:
population:
KANSAS: 80% white, 6% black, 9% Hispanic, and 5% other
abortion:
KANSAS: 77.3% White, 17.2% Black, 4.4% Hispanic
These numbers do not support your thesis.
Arizona is your rather dramatic exception.
I don’t doubt that there is a racist overtone to some of the anti-abortion laws. You hear about the (white) sects who basically have their women have as many children as possible.
I also believe there is a strong antifeminist barefoot-and-pregnant segment that would love to see women marginalized in the workforce as much as possible. I would expect to see gains by women in the workplace slide somewhat as these anti-choice measures catch on and take hold. Unless we magically see incredible maternity-leave and day care programs instituted nation-wide and especially in these highly restrictive states, I think that this may as strong an influence. The rich white boys want to keep control. Follow the money.
nice catch Lora.
got no doubt on the conclusion of the thesis. it’d be nice to back it up better though.
Here’s gruesome thought: I kind of wonder if other nefarious motives come into play in so vehemently opposing a woman’s right to choose whether or not to opt for abortion. One such motive could be profits for food and pharmaceutical industries. Each unwanted baby is more likely to be formula-fed than breast fed. Formula fed babies are more likely to develop diabetes, leukemia, and other illnesses for which insulin and medication will be necessary, thus more revenue for pharmaceutical industries and various other corporate interests.
Actually this post is nothing more than empty conspiracy theory bologna. The complete lack of any evidence for the views expressed make it an embarrassment to brad and his fantastic site…
I am sure that there might be evidence for these views, they are not in this post. Let’s try not to sound like the primates we so often mock around here.
Hello Jill,
In all states have the women forced to have the baby instead of an abortion leave the baby with the state legislature and a note stating “it is yours”! This is not abandonment but returning it to the parent.
I’m with Lora #4 and Feodor #7 on this. I’m a stats person, I do it for a living. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about these numbers, and Lora did make a good catch about the Virginia numbers.
Plain and simple, we’ve got a bunch of right-wing nuts all over the country, but concentrated in the Bible Belt (naturally) who want to tell people how to live according to their religious standards.
But doesn’t the girls father have the first right to impregnate her? She wouldn’t be here without him so if he wants to have children with her it certainly must be his right!
Women and their so called rights! Ha. The natural order of things is the one true way and anyone who disagrees is a left wing wacko.
So sayth the Tunga who has God on his side and a full script of the latest in thought inhibiting beverages on his breath.
Sigh.
Stat are valuable information to back up a claim, theory, and or conclusion.
The state government’s infringement on the Federal freedom of choice law as well as the pending legislative bills Jill used to support her opinion does not require population numbers to comprehend the intent. For example what if the race population numbers were equal when you ask yourself the following questions?
1. Is there a new violation going on here extending past the sexual encounter that caused the pregnancy?
2. Are women being forced to be subjected to unwanted information related to her private decision to control her body?
3. Psychological testing??? Mmnn So un-supported un-scientific psychiatric opinions and tests can become manipulated by numbers to eventually be able to rule a pregnant woman is unstable, and or unfit to make a decision she already acted on by going to the clinic for the safe procedure?
Good work Jill. I think your conclusions of those individuals behind certain state’s legal infringement of a woman’s right to an abortion is perhaps more complex and need to include the religious anti-abortion group also as another post hinted.
In black and white, these new state laws and pending bills speaks volumes as a way to deter all women from having a private safe procedure they already chose to have performed.
This fear and trauma alone could eventually cause a return to the dangerous back alley abortions performed by witch doctors with a coat hanger.
Women will continue to get abortions as they did prior to Roe vs. Wade. When a women in a restrictive states, from Jill’s population data that would most likely be someone from the white race chooses to have it done like it was prior to Roe vs. Wade, she will once again face the likely consequences of becoming another butchered statistic with great risk her life.
The outcome will be once again be a woman maimed for life and unable to have future offspring if she actually lives and recovers from the unsafe procedure.
No worries if the Senator’s daughter or a super rich white woman in the 5% U.S. ruling class wants the procedure, she will get flown to another country or state to secretly, quietly have the procedure safely performed out of sight.
Germany Did this before the war, for the same reasons. More Arians fewer Jews, Some thing never change for the right wing.
Perhaps there is more when you begin to see the power of the Legal System in becoming a For-Profit center. To hell with Justice. If there is
a possibility of obscene profits, let’s look at the Tip of the Iceberg, the Judges in Pennsylvania
that were incarcerating kids to line their pockets. Fortunately, they were caught and are serving time. (See Michael Moore’s movie, capitalism: A Love Story.) Supposedly. But, all across the U.S. are Prisons-for-Profit (financed by Dick Cheney/Vanguard/Wackenhutt) AND the ICE (Indeterminate) Detention Centers (22, by my count last). Great places for warehousing people.
Truly stunning in their diablolical way. Absolute evil. Just a bunch of good ol’ boys more than willing to take paychecks, pay a mortgage and live off the suffering of folk. Just a stunning way to create large amounts of
recidivism and people, that if they so choose to
organize, will once and for all destroy this country for what? Each will have their own
“reason” or multiple excuses of the actual profoundly insipid abuses by these Agencies, Unions, Courts, Judges and Lawyers that are on
the take.
Just check in with Dick Cheney’s Son-In-Law in Texas. He runs one of those resorts.
These are people that classically cannot defend themselves against SWAT teams, Sheriffs, Cops, dirtbag DA’s, Prosecutors and miscellaneous dirtbag lawyers, Judges, a Justice system that is equally corrupt in its avarice and greed. Where do you think the assets of those that declare bankruptcy for any reason go? Or go to jail for long term? Or die, alone and abandoned? Charities? Time to wake up to the BLE (Bush Legacy Economy, et.al.) and take back the country from the fascist/corporatist ticks.
It IS like Germany before Hitler rose…are we waiting for One like him? Please consider not becoming what you hate…but what we can better
become.
F Buckley Lofton, Kailua-Kona, Hawai’i
Filename: OppressionBradBlog1.rtf
Interesting observations- but -tell me- in the USA Blacks make up 13% of the population and have over one third of all abortions – because the abortion industry- NOT White men, (perhaps WHITE ELITISTS would be more appropriate) – are targeting them. Planned Parenthood the nation’s largest abortion provider was founded on eugenics and their beloved founder , Margaret Sanger, was a speaker to Klan rallies. Get a copy of the film- Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America for the proof : http://www.maafa21.ciom
“Interesting observations- but -tell me- in the USA Blacks make up 13% of the population and have over one third of all abortions – because the abortion industry- NOT White men, (perhaps WHITE ELITISTS would be more appropriate) – are targeting them. Planned Parenthood the nation’s largest abortion provider was founded on eugenics and their beloved founder , Margaret Sanger, was a speaker to Klan rallies. Get a copy of the film- Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century”
This may well be all true but it doesn’t change my mind about a womans right to choose although its quite sick the way its come about. It certainly has been helpful for women who are given a pittance or nothing to care for their kids.