Last week, the topic of Planned Parenthood – and its historically uneasy relationship with women of color — came up again. Feministing covered the story of what happened in Idaho; a caller pretending to be a white racist phoned in to the local Planned Parenthood office, offering a donation “because the less black babies, the better.” Instead of telling him off, the PP employee — who happened to be the VP of Development for Idaho — laughed nervously, but accepted the donation with the reply that the caller’s concern was “understandable.” Of course, the call was a set-up, done by a group of activists eager to expose what they believe to be a pattern of racist practices by the nation’s largest organization dedicated to ensuring access to reproductive care.
There was also a heated exchange, much of it now taken down, between blogger Apostate and Guyanese Terror (BlackAmazon). I’m trying to piece together what happened (having, as usual, come late to the debate) but it seems as if BlackAmazon made a brief reference to the racist legacy of Planned Parenthood, and that earned Apostate’s ire. Reading through the near-100 comments at Feministing, you can get a brief primer, replete with links, about the issue of Planned Parenthood and an-often problematic relationship with women of color.
I teach an introduction to women’s history course, as my readers know. I don’t teach a “great woman” theory of history, preferring instead to emphasize social and cultural developments that impacted women’s lives over the past four centuries. But I know that my students are hungry for heroes, and like many feminists, I offer Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) as one for the class to consider. Sanger, of course, coined the phrase “birth control” nearly a century ago. She founded the Birth Control League, which eventually morphed into Planned Parenthood. She played a key role in advocating for the development of oral contraceptives, and lived long enough to see Second Wave feminism flourish and the Pill hit the market. Arrested and jailed for her advocacy, she spent over half a century fighting for the fundamental right of women everywhere to be autonomous over their own flesh. It’s a stirring story.
But there is another side to Sanger’s legacy, one that many historians — particularly those of us who are inclined to see advocates for physical autonomy as the greatest of heroes — are sometimes reluctant to bring up. Like many in her era, Sanger became fascinated with eugenics, the idea that the human race could be improved through selective breeding. Sadly, she adopted many of the virulently racist ideas that were promiment in the first decades of the twentieth century. Though her motivation to give women access to birth control was hardly rooted in bigotry, Sanger was — alas — not above appealing to those who did want to limit “non-white” births. Her “period of bigotry” seems to have lasted from the early 1920s until the onset of World War Two. Like most people who flirted with eugenics, her common sense was restored by the sheer horror of the Nazis, and in her later writing, there is nothing to suggest that she held racist views.
Planned Parenthood, from its inception in 1942, sought to offer a full range of reproductive services to its clients. Its primary patient base, of course, was — and is — those who lack the capacity to pay for private health care. In many urban areas, that means a high proportion of those served by Planned Parenthood have always been women of color. Because one of the many services that Planned Parenthood provides is abortion, and because Sanger’s brief and deplorable flirtation with eugenics is widely known, the belief has endured in many minority communities that the organization she founded has the “genocide of black and brown babies” as its not-so-secret aim. Even now, I regularly hear from students — usually of color — who have been told (often by pastors in the African American church) that Planned Parenthood is, as one young woman put it, “the medical arm of the Ku Klux Klan”.
I wish I could tell them that Sanger’s views were not widely shared by the founders of Planned Parenthood. And I wish I could tell them that many of those who gave heavily to Planned Parenthood, especially in the past, didn’t have an agenda to “control non-white births”. Though the donor on the phone in Idaho was pretending to be a bigot, anecdotal evidence suggests that there really are those who give to the organization who are motivated by something less noble than the empowering of individual women. The bulk of the donor base today — and in the past — was committed to women’s empowerment, not eugenics. But that doesn’t mean that the stain of bigotry hasn’t seeped through from time to time.
I’ve mentioned before that I come from a long line of Republicans. I’m talking about a specific kind of Republican, one that was much more common in an earlier era. Call us “Rockefeller” or “country-club” Republicans; the main concerns of those in my family who belonged to the GOP were individual freedom, limited government, and conservation. Both my maternal great-grandfathers were in the founding generation of the Sierra Club — and staunch Republicans. And my grandparents’ generation was filled with folks who gave to Planned Parenthood. My aunt was president of the board of one Planned Parenthood chapter in the Bay Area for many years.
Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club were the “two great charities” in my family, and for similar reasons. The preservation of wild spaces requires limits on population, after all. It’s easier to take care of the field mice and the eagles when California has 15 million people as opposed to 40 million, regardless of the consumption patterns of the human population. Mind you, this wasn’t eugenics. I never heard a racist word from my elders in the family; their support for birth-control and small families was rooted in a desire to keep the human population low, not merely the population of people of color. When one of my cousins and his wife did something really shocking (have four children), they were — I kid you not — lectured by a number of their relatives. (Quite a few have had vasectomies or tubal ligations after the second child.)
Though most of us gave to Planned Parenthood, few of us needed to utilize their services. Our good fortune was to have access to private health care. We understood that Planned Parenthood was there for those who didn’t have that kind of access. And in practice, in urban areas, that meant that Planned Parenthood would always have a high client base of women of color. But make no mistake; the four generations of birth-control activists I’ve known were all in favor of limiting all human population, not merely those with high concentratons of melanin.
Of course, this meant that growing up, we were particularly exasperated by those cultures that advocated large families. My grandmother, bless her soul, was a very gentle woman. But when she saw the pope on television, advocating still more babies, she grew nearly apoplectic. She was convinced, as all of us still are, that one of the best ways to ensure women’s autonomy, the survival of the planet, and a decrease in global poverty is to limit family size. Grandmother worried about over-population in Africa and in Latin America, but she was every bit as frustrated with our wealthy white Mormon neighbors who had nine children. Skin color was not the issue; numbers were the issue.
It’s clear to me that Planned Parenthood still has work to do. The Idaho incident is, one hopes, an isolated one. The employee involved ought to be disciplined. But the truth is, Planned Parenthood has had — at least recently — a very solid record on promoting the leadership of women of color. Perhaps its most dynamic president of the last quarter century was the splendid Faye Wattleton, an African-American woman who took over PP when she was barely 35 years old. Many local chapters are led by women of color. When I visit — as I sometimes do — the local Pasadena chapter, I see more black and brown faces among the staff than I do white ones. But clearly, still more can be done.
I donated to Planned Parenthood from the time I first had a job of my own. I stopped donating in 2000, as I made my journey over to the pro-life side of the fence. Last month, I started giving to PP again after eight years; once again, monthly contributions will be made on my credit card. I long for a world where abortions are no longer even thinkable, where each child conceived is planned and longed for and healthy. But since the Messiah seems to be tarrying in His return, we’ve got to do the best we can with this messy world we’ve got. And one of the best things we can do is work as hard as we can to give each and every woman — rich and poor, black and white, Muslim, Mormon, atheist — as much sovereignty over her own flesh as possible. Planned Parenthood does that work where no one else will do it, and they do it at great cost and without profit.
Few institutions are more richly deserving of support than PP. But even its strongest supporters must concede that a long legacy of mistrust between Planned Parenthood and communities of color is still a problem. Rather than denying what was — in part - a racist heritage, PP and its supporters need to be more proactive than ever in reaching out. Part of that reaching out lies in being honest about the past, and being ruthlessly committed to justice in the present. And that means that someone in Idaho might need to lose her job.
Guyanese Terror
Her name is BlackAmazon, right? I’ve never seen anyone (including her) refer to her that way.
She was convinced, as all of us still are, that one of the best ways to ensure women’s autonomy, the survival of the planet, and a decrease in global poverty is to limit family size.
Isn’t it the other way around? Ensuring women’s autonomy leads to smaller families, which is better for the planet, but “limiting family size” sounds like enforced population control to me, which curtails autonomy and easy gives way to eugenics.
I suppose it’s a “chicken and the egg” thing with autonomy and family size. Certainly, Planned Parenthood and its supporters care about both the freedom and independence of individual women and the population as a whole. It’s not an either/or, but a both/and. I agree that the way I phrased it made it sound as if that limiting was being imposed from above, rather than largely self-directed by women who were given real reproductive options.
As for Guyanese Terror, her real name (about which she is open) is Sydette; she blogs as BlackAmazon. I used “Guyanese Terror” as the blog name to set up against Apostate, in the same way that we sometimes say that “Pandagon said” or “Amanda Marcotte said”.
It’s one of the many benefits of blogging as “Hugo Schwyzer.”
Because one of the many services that Planned Parenthood provides is abortion, and because Sanger’s brief and deplorable flirtation with eugenics is widely known, the belief has endured in many minority communities that the organization she founded has the “genocide of black and brown babies” as its not-so-secret aim. Even now, I regularly hear from students — usually of color — who have been told (often by pastors in the African American church) that Planned Parenthood is, as one young woman put it, “the medical arm of the Ku Klux Klan”.
Interestingly, Sanger was also opposed to abortion rights even longer than she was an outspoken racist. Does that mean Planned Parenthood is against abortion now? No, of course not. It probably doesn’t even mean that Sanger was against abortion. She was a political creature and was interested in framing birth control in a way that make it politically palatable, which means that she was always trying to fit it into the popular discourse. Which means preventing abortion and appealing to racists.
My point is that her opposition to abortion rights and eugenics seem to stem from the same place, the political placating urge that drives Democrats now to talk up civil unions instead of gay marriage.
I don’t know if someone in Planned Parenthood needs to lose their job, but it seems to me that Planned Parenthood urgently needs to educate all of their staff about the law:
If any organization promoting reproductive choice encounters a donor interested in targeting an ethnic group with the aim of eliminating or reducing the numbers of that group, prudence, decency, and (should those fail) the applicable law all suggest rejecting the donor at once.
A troublng number of the posts at “Feministing” indicated a willingness to accept a social policy of limiting the births to women of color, or a complete lack of understanding about the moral argument against accepting a donation given on overtly racist grounds. While I hope many of the posts in question came from trolls, the discussion left me very concerned.
I’m working on a blog post about this, but after all the reading and note taking I have a massive headache and don’t really want to get into it at the moment. But I do want to be a little nitpicky about “Guyanese Terror”, that’s just part of an URL, it’s neither the name of the blogger or the blog. We’ve already established that the blogger is Sydette/BlackAmazon, and the blog name is Having Read the Fine Print.
I’m not at all sure this person needs to lose her job. Honestly, I read about the exchange and thought “great, take their money, they don’t have to know it’s not going to the racist cause they think it is.” On second thought there are ethical issues there as well (lying to take someone’s money). But really she didn’t lie to him, just failed to correct him.
If I’d picked up the phone, well, I’d have been so taken aback I don’t think I’d have known what to do other than just go with the flow, and it’s not like the money won’t do good regardless of the intentions of the donor. Sure, “don’t make waves” isn’t the ideal reaction, but it strikes me as a very forgivable one.
“work as hard as we can to give each and every woman … as much sovereignty over her own flesh as possible.”
The baby that she and the father created is not her own flesh, of couse, but a distinct new human being.
“Planned Parenthood does that work where no one else will do it, and they do it at great cost and without profit. ”
PP does have excess revenues over expenditures, consistently. More than $55 million annually. Also more than $300 million in taxpayer dollars, a full third of its total budget.
If I’d picked up the phone, well, I’d have been so taken aback I don’t think I’d have known what to do other than just go with the flow,
With respect, if that is true, you would not be qualified to deal with the public on behalf of PP or any similar organization.
I have worked for another reproductive rights organization in the past; there is a very straightforward division between what you think privately and what you say as a representative. The woman who answered the phone might think, personally, that a racist’s money is as green as anyone’s, and why not take it. That’s fine. A Planned Parenthood representative, however, has no business saying anything on behalf of her group that her group would not want blazoned on a press release. Conciliating racists for money is not okay. She made her branch of PP look morally bankrupt, and that isl not “very forgivable.”
it’s not like the money won’t do good regardless of the intentions of the donor.
Except for the part where it was a hoax and there is no money. And if it didn’t occur to her that it was a hoax, then that suggests that it is not uncommon for outspoken racists to call in support of PP. And it is not okay to encourage or accept that.
I suppose it’s a “chicken and the egg” thing with autonomy and family size.
It isn’t, though, not remotely. Enforced family size a la Romania or China does not lead to more female autonomy. Women’s autonomy comes first.
Sophonisba, fair enough. I abhor compulsory family limitation. What we know is that given a real choice and a full panoply of reproductive options, relatively few women choose to have very large families.
Lisa:
I experience a stunned moment when someone seems just not to get why this matters, and why reproductive rights organizations have to approach the subject of the relative birthrates of different ethnic groups with sensitivity. Ignore, for a moment, the practical effects: the erosion of trust, which has the potential to make women of color unwilling to seek health care from Planned Parenthood, the talking points the anti-abortion movement will undoubtedly make full use of for some time to come. The inability, or the unwillingness, to understand the moral and legal implications of having any truck with someone who wants to reduce the numbers of an oppressed group surprises and saddens me.
From the applicable law:
If you agree to help someone with a specific agenda to reduce the population of an ethnic group by using birth control or abortion, that skates very close to the legal definition of conspiracy to commit genocide.
sophonisba:
Right on (both your posts).
Right, but the fetus or embryo depends for it existence on her body. For a woman to have sovereignty over her own body and her own life, she has to decide what, and who,she can take care of. Hugo’s statement certainly has the advantage of factual correctness. I think it has the advantage of ethical accuracy as well.
The story I heard about wasn’t an isolated incident in Idaho. The student behind it called seven different Planned Parenthood donor lines in four different states and got similar responses. I wouldn’t call it an isolated incident at all. It doesn’t prove anything systemic within Planned Parenthood, since it’s a pretty small sample, but it’s not just one instance either. It’s seven in seven different states.
Jeremy, interesting that a tape of only one incident surfaced; given that we can presume that Lila Rose (the 19 year-old UCLA student ringleader of this right-wing hit operation) taped all the other calls as well, I find it a bit, well, unlikely that it is as you say. But the pro-life movement, eager to discredit the nation’s largest provider of reproductive care to low-income women, is not the best source for information about PP. Produce the tapes and name the names– it sounds more likely that they kept calling, and calling, and calling, until finally they found some bloomin’ idiot in Idaho with whom they could play “gotcha.”
Hugo, I would like to think that, but I have to say that based on comments both here and in the Feministing discussion you covered, a frightening number of pro-choice people simply don’t grasp the sensitivities and the history involved. Given the number of people who have written in Feministing and here that they would have reacted the same way the Planned Parenthood Idaho staffer did. I think attributing this problem to a single “bloomin’ idiot” rather misses the scope of the needed educational work.
The 23 year old “boyfriend” is the founder of The Rutgers University Centurion http://rucenturion.com - a conservative monthly publication - and a friend I hold in high esteem. We met singing in the celebrated glee club together at school and I found he is forever railing against what he perceives to be left-leaning lunacy. I confess he was one of the two people to “convert” me from the blind liberalism I choked down in high school. Now I too rail against the infuriating policies of Rutgers University (President Richard McCormick is a trophy in the hand of NJ Governor Jon Corzine) - policies that encourage permitting a mandatory meeting my freshman year to listen to GLBT speakers “discuss” the decision to ban the popular sandwich names “fat bitch” and “fat dyke” from Rutgers property. For the record, I took issue with the mandatory nature of the meeting organized through the Rutgers housing authority (My parents didn’t shell out $thousands so that other people can shove their political views down my throat) and not necessarily with the offensive sandwich name-change. Needless to say, I self-righteously avoided that meeting. [I think it conflicted with glee club rehearsal… :D
I just talked with James again tonight. He says, get ready for more PP expose over the next 2 weeks, this time in national media outlets. Whether or not you’ll agree with his reporting method, his pro-life stance, or his allegation that PP was founded upon a racist agenda, we will soon see through PP employee interviews that these people are consistently showing bigoted attitudes. Though I know no details, we will wait and see.
Point of contention:
Hugo: “I’ve mentioned before that I come from a long line of Republicans. I’m talking about a specific kind of Republican, one that was much more common in an earlier era. Call us “Rockefeller” or “country-club” Republicans; the main concerns of those in my family who belonged to the GOP were individual freedom, limited government, and conservation.”
Funny, the last time I checked, the Rockefeller dynasty has been all-for limiting individual liberty, increasing the power of the federal govt. and perverting the constitution. As the moneybagsses would seek control citizens totally with an alliance between free business and shadow govt. all the while promoting one world-state, it does not follow you should label yourself “conservative” in the same vein as the tyrant-Rockefellers.