One of the tricks of people like Biden and Pelosi is to promote abortion rights for the poor, especially the poor black and black people. Due to lack of financial means, unsafe abortion was required.
Therefore, the right to abortion must be listed in the category of health care, not fetal murder. Fordham University professor of theology and social ethics Charles C. Camosy doesn't think so. In America magazine May 20, 2022, he wrote:
Ever since the day Chief Justice Samuel Alito's draft majority opinion was leaked, it's common to hear statements like these:
“We need to focus on the stories of the economically vulnerable and why they need abortion.”
"This is privileged white men trying to control women's bodies."
"The laws that restrict abortion are a form of white supremacy."
It's always like that, isn't it? Today, people can't swing their Gucci handbags without bumping into a few privileged people speaking on behalf of the poor (and especially poor people of color) as a way to boost their support. themselves to the right to abortion.
It is true that black and colored people are pushed to have abortions much more often than white people. For the past 14 years, I have taught at Fordham University in the Bronx. During that time, the abortion rate outside the walls of our campus fluctuated around the amazing and terrible 50%.
This is one of the poorest areas of the country, with very high proportions of black and colored residents being structurally forced to have abortions: They often face a lack of housing, care and support. children and health care.
They often don't get support as mothers of multiple children (most women who have abortions already have one or more children) in the workplace. They must deal with horrific levels of violence from their spouses. All of these correlate very closely with abortion.
But those who imagine that this type of population are allies in favor of abortion rights should think again. Indeed, in 2021, Gallup found that economically vulnerable people of color were more resistant to abortion than wealthy whites.
For those in households earning less than $40,000 per year, only 30% support the official Democratic Party position: that abortion is legal under all circumstances. For those in households earning more than $100,000 per year, those wanting an unlimited abortion rose to 39%.
Among the economically vulnerable, 42 percent want legal abortion only under certain circumstances, while 50 percent of the economically privileged want it. But there's also this: 1 in 4 economically vulnerable people want to ban abortion altogether, while only 1 in 10 economically privileged people want to.
Also, in all circumstances of the same Gallup poll, people of color are more anti-abortion than non-Hispanic whites.
The difference was even more pronounced when asked about whether they were pro-life or pro-choice. Economically vulnerable people have +11 percentage points pro-life while those with economic privileges of +24 favor choice.
People of color who identified themselves as pro-life slightly outnumbered those who identified as pro-choice, while the opposite was true for non-Hispanic whites.
The numbers above force us to confront a spooky twist of the case: Those most likely to oppose abortion are those who are more likely to be structurally coerced into abortion. pregnant.
Assuch, it is quite a sight to see that privileged diagnosticians repeatedly denounce poor people of color in defense of their abortion views. If we take the time to really listen to these people — if we really focus on their views and experiences — it will directly challenge abortion-friendly policies. by Roe.
(Of course, policies dictated from above by an overwhelmingly privileged group of white men.) It would challenge the Roe-generated abortion extremism that the United States currently has only in common. with seven other countries.
While the pro-life movements have invested millions of dollars in pregnancy support centers and other facilities (reducing the number of abortion clinics) to try to help these women in 5 over the past decade, it must be said that much more can and should be done to address the structural problems and failed public policies that lead to such ghostly outcomes.
Happily, the liberal side of the Republican Party is beginning to wane and its pro-life movements are on the rise. People with pro-life religions in particular are making significant moves to address the so-called need for abortion.
Last November, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced its new project, titled: Accompanying Mothers in Need. (The California bishops have their own plan, titled “We Are Born Ready.”) The Center for Ethics and Public Policy recently announced its Life and Family Initiative. The de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame has launched the First initiative for Women and Children.
These efforts are certainly better than those of corporations like Amazon, which work tirelessly to undermine the interests of workers in favor of their shareholders. even offers a violent abortion “option” to its employees. Unfortunately, they even pay women to travel for abortions instead of actually supporting them to be both mothers and Amazon employees.
Abortion is a “no choice” for those without power and privilege. They don't want violence. They want justice.
If the chattering classes want to learn more about why the pervasive narrative of economic vulnerability, race and abortion is false, I suggest Black Voices. The following is with you, just as a start: Gloria Purvis, Justin Giboney, Monique Chiereau Wubbenhorst and Connecticut Representative Trenee McGee. They will absolutely make you think and more about their origins.
To the rest of the experts: Defend your right to abortion, if you must. But now you are clearly on the wrong side of history, if history is leaning towards nonviolence and promoting the voiceless and marginalized. But when you stand up for it, stop calling for allies who don't share your views on abortion.
Tags:
catholic