By Nidhi Ashok

Abstract

This paper delves into the intricate interplay between state policy and the plethora of societal identities, particularly through the lens of family planning policies and reproductive rights. Through an intersectional framework, the article seeks to showcase the duality of experience of one community, juxtaposed with another, and the unique vulnerabilities at play associated with their identity. The most predominant intersecting identities of race, socio-economic means, caste and gender, among others, frame the experience of each individual in a very unique and nuanced light. The effect of family planning policies either pursued in the United States by the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgement or the period of forced sterilisation during the Emergency are practical scenarios employed to showcase the additional burden imposed on communities of a specific race and economic standing. 

Introduction 

The term “feminism” evolving from its nascent roots in 1848 to its contemporary manifestation, has been used within academic and everyday discourse as a singular movement characterised by a unified community striving for the realisation of shared objectives. However, within the ambit of a more nuanced explanation of feminism emerges a multifaceted movement that envelopes numerous communal agendas that intersect, diverge and contradict with each other. For instance, the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in the United States in 1870 granted Black men the right to vote. This angered the sentiments of the women’s rights leaders at the time as Black men had been granted suffrage before White women. Thus, while the women’s suffrage movement was instrumental in advancing the rights of White women, it excluded the voices of Black feminists owing to prevailing racial biases at the time. Flowing from this argument, historically, the feminist agenda has specifically catered to the average White, middle class women. Optimistically, contemporary society has borne witness to a growing diversity within feminist academia which caters to the concerns of women from different ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds. However, at the national and international level,  the disproportionate impact of policy measures in diverse communities display the prematurity of such a shift. 

As a policy domain enacted by regional, national and international institutions, reproductive rights and family planning measures have been the source of heated debate and contention for several decades. The Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development which was reaffirmed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasised on equality in access to reproductive health care including family planning and sexual health. This was in line with the goal of providing all individuals with the basic right of deciding freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children. Thus, while overarchingly the goal of family was providing every individual with the access to acceptable methods of family planning, on-ground realities have seen a disproportionate impact of such policies among different communities of women. Family planning as a policy measure thus demonstrates the difficulties in adapting general state-driven provisions and initiatives to diverse communities with intersectional identities. The distribution of benefits derived from such state policies often exhibit a skewed pattern which disproportionately favours certain demographic groups over others. Such inequities are rooted in historically established disparities created and propagated by race, socio-economic status, gender and geographic location. 

Reproductive Rights and Racial Justice

The access to health care by people of colour has been hindered by historical and structural discrimination that continues to persist even in today’s time. Factors like unequal access to education and employment opportunities along with other factors like racism, which forced people of colour into specific neighbourhoods, has contributed to the disparities in wealth which has in turn perpetuated a standard of low and inaccessible health care for such communities. Personal biases and racism amongst clinicians and physicians has also perpetuated a general level of distrust amongst people of colour towards the health care system and also has created a segregated workforce. While policy-level interventions can help furthering a culture of health equity and reducing subjective biases that contravene such a goal, political motivations make it hard to ascertain the attitude of the state and the importance afforded to such ends. An illustration of the double-edged sword that is policy making, was the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgement in the United states. The Bench argued that the Constitution did not grant the right to abortion and state regulation in this respect should be upheld so long as it had a rational basis. These regulations were purported to protect prenatal life at all stages and prohibit discrimination on factors like race, sex and disabilities. 

While the state policy was therefore propagated in a way that was inclined towards preventing abortions in the case of foetal abnormalities, it was undeniably discriminatory and violative when it came to the women whose choice was being curtailed. While this policy was a blanket legislation which applied to women of all communities, it is essential to investigate whether its impact was disproportionately felt by specific demographic groups of women. Women of colour continue to be in a disadvantageous position when it comes to matters of reproductive rights and justice. A study revealed that in 2019, Black women had the highest rate of abortions marking 23.8 abortions per 1000 women. The rationale behind this lies in the fact that particular racial communities are impacted by poverty and lack of proper health care. Other health indicators  like infant mortality and birth outcomes also go on to display the staggering disparity that hinder the reproductive rights of women of colour. Women of colour are also more vulnerable to violence associated with pregnancy.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade compounds existing systemic inequalities, exacerbating the reproductive health crisis for women of colour. The restriction of access to abortion will therefore compel many women to carry to term and thus will exacerbate issues like poverty that disproportionately impact them. This also opens them up to health risks, which already unequally tips the scales against their favour. Furthermore, the patchwork of state-level abortion bans forces many women to travel across state lines to access essential healthcare services. This does not only inconvenience women of colour in lieu of economic and financial scarcity, but it also affects pregnant minors and disabled women from accessing such services due to limitations in organising transportation, childcare and support systems. The crackdown on abortions has led to the erosion of trust between healthcare providers and patients, particularly those of colours. Thus, this could lead to delays and inadequacies in care as women of colour would seek medical attention much more hesitantly than their white counterparts. 

The Emergency and its Impact on the Impoverished 

In July 1975, the former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed a state of emergency in India which lasted until March 1977. During this time, the ruling government pursued a campaign of rigorous economic development and the overarching goal of removal of poverty, through the garibi hatao programme. However, this campaign has largely been seen as more of an attack on the bodies of the poor than the root causes of poverty.  One of the primary avenues through which an attempt was made to eradicate poverty was through the family planning program. Millions were sterilised in this regard and the Emergency came to be remembered as a time of reproductive injustice rather than  economic development. Coercion and compulsion were dually encouraged by the central government to conduct forced sterilisations of the people. News and the media were flooded with stories of how these hastily conducted forced procedures resulted in medical complications and death. Many academics have not viewed the Emergency as a means to eradicate poverty, but the poor themselves. The crux of the program would be felt amongst the lowest strata of society, specifically in the villages and slums where progress was slow. 

Sterilisation was also made a prerequisite for accessing essential services such as the  grant of loans, permits and even admission to teaching institutions. This had a disproportionate impact on marginalised and impoverished communities who already faced barriers to these opportunities and furthered the compulsion to undergo such procedures. Monetary incentives were also provided to those that voluntarily underwent the sterilization procedures and were used in conjunction with other coercive tactics to force people, especially those from marginalised communities to undergo sterilisation. Threats were made against job security in lieu of securing compliance. Furthermore, housing, irrigation, ration cards and public health care facilities were also used as weapons to further this agenda of population control and sterilisation scheme. Marginalised communities who were economically disadvantaged were already in a vulnerable position considering their dependance on such schemes and benefits that were granted by the government. Consequently, the coercive family planning policies that were implemented during the Emergency exposed the stark disparities in access to reproductive healthcare and decision-making power between affluent and impoverished individuals. Socio-economically disadvantaged individuals were disproportionately affected by these policies due to their limited agency and vulnerability to state coercion, thereby framing their unique experience. 

Conclusion

The intersection of race, class and gender has thus played a crucial role in shaping reproductive experiences and access to healthcare. Historical and systemic inequalities have disproportionately affected marginalised communities, particularly women of colour and individuals who live in poverty. Policies that are ostensibly aimed at addressing population control thus display their potential in generating utility in society but have also highlighted the unique vulnerabilities that affect different communities of people. It must only follow that this is the potential that is shared by all policies in their impact on society. In the context of the two case studies analysed above, policies can exacerbate existing cycles of discrimination and inequality. The need of the hour, is perhaps a multifaceted approach that involves equitable access to basic necessities and empowerment of marginalised communities. With respect to reproductive rights and family planning, comprehensive sex education, equitable access to healthcare, advocacy and policy evaluation and reform are much needed at the grassroots to ensure a mitigation of any adverse effects that state policy can create in society.  There is a demand, now more than ever, for policies that are cognizant of the peculiar disadvantages and demographic disparities of the people that will undeniably benefit or suffer as a result of their enforcement. 

About the Author:

Nidhi Ashok is a third-year law student currently studying at Jindal Global Law School. She is an advocate for women’s rights and is on a journey to constantly inform and involve herself in creating an equitable society.