American Abortion Access in the Time of a Pandemic

Photograph by Glenna Gordon for CNN.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

About one quarter of all American women will use abortion services by the age of 45 [1]. Access to safe abortions is a human right; the ability to determine whether and when to have a child has significant implications for the economic, social, and political equality of women [1]. Despite its essential nature, the right to receive an abortion has faced new restrictions in the age of COVID-19.

Many individuals are arguing to end abortion services during the pandemic, but these arguments do not stem from the desire for safety. Rather, they serve as a continuation of the long-standing debate concerning the morality of abortion. According to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, some argue that reproductive healthcare services interfere with hospital resources that should instead be going to COVID-19 patients in critical condition [2]. Others argue that providing reproductive healthcare services is not consistent with social distancing [2]. Both of these arguments are misguided. Most reproductive healthcare occurs in an “ambulatory setting,” and thus does not take away from the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [2]. Delaying reproductive healthcare might actually increase the demand for hospital resources, as pregnancies resulting in termination at later stages face significantly higher risks of complications [2]. Additionally, reproductive healthcare settings are taking steps to mitigate the risk of contagion by offering telemedicine, enhanced hygiene protocols, and infection screening prior to appointments [2]. Like all medical environments, practices providing reproductive healthcare are effectively minimizing the risk of infection and ensuring maximum possible social distancing [2]. These truths have not prevented the restriction of abortion access, however. Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have supported the cessation of both medication and surgical abortion, using a much more insidious argument: that abortion procedures are “elective” or “nonessential” [1].

The restriction of abortion care is always negative, but is particularly dangerous during this pandemic. The classification of abortions as “elective” suggests that women’s equality and autonomy is expendable [1]. It also implicitly questions a woman’s judgement to make decisions concerning her own body. In medicine, an “elective procedure” is one that can be delayed without consequences [1]. Considering the increasing risks associated with delaying abortion, and maximum limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed legally, abortion is in no way “elective,” and classifying it as such will mean that “many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all” [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this might mean that families will face the undue financial burden of an additional child, or that women will face an unplanned pregnancy resulting from intimate partner violence, which has increased as a result of quarantine orders [1]. 

Restricted access to abortion care is particularly harmful to women of color. Many women of color already experience limited access to abortion [3]. Women of color face income inequality, which means that they are more likely to be covered by Medicaid and in turn impacted by the Hyde Amendment, which bands federal funds for abortion care in Medicaid [3]. Women of color also face explicit racism; anti-choice organizations have targeted Black and Latina women with the false rhetoric that they devalue human life, even in the womb [3]. Restricting abortion access, which is already restricted to women of color, as a result of this pandemic, which also disproportionately impacts people of color, will significantly harm minority American populations.

We cannot sit idly by while women, and especially women of color, watch their rights fade away. Abortion is undeniably an essential healthcare service. Those who argue that the COVID-19 pandemic warrants restricted reproductive healthcare are either misguided or ill-intentioned. 

References

[1] Bayefsky, Michelle J., Deborah Bartz, and Katie L. Watson. “Abortion during the Covid-19 Pandemic—Ensuring Access to an Essential Health Service.” New England Journal of Medicine (2020): 382. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008006. 

[2] Kushnir, Vitaly A., Banafsheh Kashani, and Eli Y. Adashi. “Reproductive healthcare during a pandemic: a New York state of mind.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2020). Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.005. 

[3] Mhatre, Nikita. “Abortion Restrictions Hurt Women of Color.” National Partnership for Women and Families. April 25, 2019. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-impact/blog/general/abortion-restrictions-hurt-women-of-color.html.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

Drug Laws, Racism, and Women

Illustration by Vidushi Yadav for the Association for Women’s Rights in Development.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Black Americans account for 30 percent of all drug-related arrests, even though only 12.5 percent of substance users are black [1]. Black and white Americans use substances at equal rates; however, black Americans are about six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses than their white peers [1]. In court, prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue mandatory minimum sentences for black defendants than white defendants, and black defendants are less likely to evade these mandatory minimums [1]. 

In 1971, President Richard Nixon established the war on drugs, which in turn increased sentencing and enforcement actions for low-level drug offenses [1]. 15 years after Nixon’s presidency, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, establishing mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related offenses [2]. The increased criminalization of substance use tied with increased drug law enforcement led to the American phenomenon of mass incarceration. Since 1980, the number of American arrests for drug possession has tripled and today one-fifth of the prison population is serving time for a drug-related offense [1]. 

This mass incarceration has differentially impacted black Americans. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 included sentences for offenses involving crack cocaine, used more commonly by black Americans, that were one hundred times more severe than sentences for offenses involving the equally dangerous powder cocaine, used more often by white Americans [2]. As aforementioned, prosecutors are more likely to seek the mandatory minimum sentence for a black defendant than a white defendant even when the defendants are charged with the same crime [3]. 

Often, the criminal justice reform narrative has centered on men. It is also important to recognize how the war on drugs has affected women, and specifically women of color. Since the war on drugs and subsequent tough on crime initiatives, the number of female inmates in the United States has increased by 646 percent, which is nearly double the rate for men [4]. In 1988, Congress amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and applied mandatory minimum sentences to any member of a drug trafficking conspiracy; this includes activities such as “living where drugs are sold, being present during a drug sale, or counting money” [4]. Considering not only that women are expected to contribute to the household but also that women often remain in relationships with men involved with drugs because of fear of assault, women are frequently at a heightened and unfair risk of incarceration [4]. 

Black women are almost twice as likely as white women to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses, even though drug use occurs at similar rates across racial groups [5]. In addition to these continued racial disparities in sentencing, black women were unjustly labeled “welfare queens” in the 1980s [6]. Policymakers and the media depicted black women as unfeminine cheats who gave birth to “crack babies,” wrongly blaming them for the cause of the social and economic decline of the late 20th century [6]. 

Prejudiced people and laws have impacted not only how many people get arrested, but also who gets arrested. Drug law enforcement initiatives have targeted black Americans. Often, women who are in fact victims are incarcerated on conspiracy charges, and this disproportionately impacts black women. Unfair arrest practices and sentencing create cycles of not only poverty, but also racism, and perpetuate long-standing ills of American society. To address these wrongs, we must fundamentally amend drug laws and their enforcement practices and examine our own prejudices.

References

[1] Pearl, Betsy. “Ending the War on Drugs: By the Numbers.” Center for American Progress. June 27, 2018. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice /reports/2018/06/27/452819/ending-war-drugs-numbers/.

[2] HISTORY.COM Editors. “War on Drugs.” May 31, 2017. https://www.history.com/topics/crime/the-war-on-drugs#section_6.

[3] Drug Policy Alliance. “The Drug War, Mass Incarceration and Race.” January 25, 2018. http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/drug-war-mass-incarceration-and-race-englishspanish.

[4] Mesic, Aldina. “Women and the War on Drugs.” Public Health Post. May 16, 2017. https://www.publichealthpost.org/research/women-and-the-war-on-drugs/.

[5] Drug Policy Alliance. “Women and the Drug War.” https://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/women-drug-war.

[6] Harris-Perry, Melissa. “The rest of the story: Black women and the War on Drugs.” The Undefeated. September 15, 2016. https://theundefeated.com/features/the-rest-of-story-black-women-and-the-her-story-of-the-war-on-drugs-jay-z-melissa-harris-perry-nyt/.

---

Sophie Lovering is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She has a passion for criminal justice reform and is involved in Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression.

Power in Place's Dedication to Racial Equality

Art by Yang Sun.

By: Sophie Lovering, Summer 2020 Collaborator at Power in Place

Power in Place has dedicated 2020 as the year we celebrate women of color. In 1920, women were granted the right to vote; but not all women. Women of color and immigrant women continued to battle for voting rights. Thus, we have dedicated this summer to exploring this narrative and celebrating women of color in the political sphere. 

As evidenced by police brutality and inequality in our criminal justice system, America still has a long way to go in the fight for racial equality. Power in Place would like to bring attention to the systemic racism that perpetuates our society and provide resources should you have the means to donate or participate in some other way.

There are several actions you can take to participate in change. Donating, signing petitions, having meaningful discussions, considering your prejudices, and joining peaceful physical movements are all beneficial to yourself and your community. The link at the end of this post will direct you to a list of resources compiled by Power in Place collaborators. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it should help if you are looking for direction. 

Power in Place will continue to uplift Black women in politics. Please continue to check our blog and social media accounts for further information. Click here to find the aforementioned resources.

---

Sophie Lovering is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She has a passion for criminal justice reform and is involved in Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression.