STFU, PRO-LIFERS!

RSS
bee (issueswithgravity@live.com) submitted:

I am uncomfortable when we are not about me?

Oh, yeah.  It’s super gross how anti-choicers have to constantly make it about themselves and fetuses.  The Ferguson protests are about actual people who are suffering under systemic injustices.  Stfu, pro-lifers.

bee () submitted:

I am uncomfortable when we are not about me?

Oh, yeah.  It’s super gross how anti-choicers have to constantly make it about themselves and fetuses.  The Ferguson protests are about actual people who are suffering under systemic injustices.  Stfu, pro-lifers.

catlock-catwings:
Yup, the use of instillation abortion has drastically declined and fallen out of favor especially when safer methods are available.  Medical procedures improving with time.  Go figure, huh?
anonymous:
Yup! Looked into it.  I don’t know if it has to be before nine weeks.  From what I read, it was an abortion ban that forces doctors to check for viability at any point, and pending that status, an abortion would be illegal with the exception being risk to personal health or to prevent any major impairment on bodily functions.  And I also read that this bill would also remove the exception of psychological trouble, which I think is also extremely disgusting.  It’s a very unnecessary law that puts more obstacles and risks between patients and their doctors.  It’s also a waste of taxpayer money.

catlock-catwings:

Yup, the use of instillation abortion has drastically declined and fallen out of favor especially when safer methods are available.  Medical procedures improving with time.  Go figure, huh?

anonymous:

Yup! Looked into it.  I don’t know if it has to be before nine weeks.  From what I read, it was an abortion ban that forces doctors to check for viability at any point, and pending that status, an abortion would be illegal with the exception being risk to personal health or to prevent any major impairment on bodily functions.  And I also read that this bill would also remove the exception of psychological trouble, which I think is also extremely disgusting.  It’s a very unnecessary law that puts more obstacles and risks between patients and their doctors.  It’s also a waste of taxpayer money.

(TRIGGER WARNING: Rape, Suicide, Violence) Suicidal Rape Victim Denied Abortion at 8 Weeks, Forced to Have Caesarian Birth at 25 Weeks

A young woman forced to give birth by caesarean section after being denied an abortion in Ireland became pregnant after she was raped, a friend has said.

The woman, who cannot be named, was refused an abortion when she demanded a termination at eight weeks, saying she was suicidal.

The case is the first proper test of Ireland’s 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which allows for abortions in Irish hospitals in limited circumstances.

Those include the woman’s life being in danger if the pregnancy went to full term and where she is suicidal in such instances as rape and incest…

A friend of the woman told the Irish Times the woman, an immigrant, became pregnant after being raped in her own country. She discovered she was pregnant a few weeks after arriving in Ireland this year and told her friends: “I do not want this. I am too young to be a mother. I am not ready.”

Her friend said the woman was not given information on how to obtain an abortion, and as the pregnancy continued she became increasingly distressed.

The friend said the woman was advised to go to a local doctor, which she did in mid-July. The GP gave her a letter for a hospital, the friend said, and she was admitted. She was told in hospital on 22 July that an abortion was not possible as the pregnancy was too far advanced.

Her friend confirmed that the woman had first asked for a termination when she was eight weeks pregnant.

After the woman threatened to go on hunger strike to protest against the decision, local health authorities obtained a court order to deliver the baby prematurely – at about 25 weeks, according to some reports – to ensure its safety. The infant has been placed in care.

messageisvoid:
Oh, wow.  You really went there.  You used your own brother to put yourself on some pedestal labeled “Don’t Call Me an Ableist! I Took Care of My Disabled Brother!”  And that’s so messed up.  It really is.
Are you not even aware that many caretakers can be horribly ableist?
It’s similar to that weak defense: “I’m not racist, I have a PoC friend!/I’m not a misogynist, I have a sister!” There should be some law out there, like Lewis’ Law.  When you have to defend your ableist/racist/homophobic/misogynist statements with “I’m not _____, because I have a ________ ________” then you’ve only proven your accuser’s point.  I’m sure it already exists and it’s on TVTropes or something.  If not, I dub it Le’s Law.
Being pro-choice doesn’t diminish or stop anyone from celebrating motherhood.  (Read back to my response — also make sure to check out some of the replies/reblogs, there are some good points made.)
Again, I called out your comparison between disabled folks and fetuses as a logical fallacy and even explained why.  It’s literally a false analogy.  Just stop.  It’s also super ableist.  So, seriously.  Stop.  Address my points before attempting a circular argument. (Seriously, read back to the response!)
You want pregnant people and fetuses viewed equally.  That’s not possible.  If you give the fetus the “right to life” then you are taking away the pregnant person’s right to their own body and sometimes the right to their own life.  You are saying that it’s okay for a fetus to use someone else’s body for several months and that’s it’s okay to force someone to go through childbirth against their will for the fetus (both of these things are considered torture).  No one on Earth currently has this right.  We can’t even do it to corpses legally.  But you’re asking that we should be able to do this to pregnant people or people who have the ability to get pregnant?
Talking about fetal biological structures in comparison to actual people is irrelevant and silly.  I’m not going to deny that they’re human.  So what?
If you needed any of my organs/body parts for any reason to live, are you more entitled to your right to life or am I more entitled to my own life and my own body?  Think about that.  You cannot do this without my consent.  And if I said no to you, we’d still have equal status under the law.  Why should fetuses be granted that right?  That’s not equality.  You’re not asking for them to be viewed equally if you think fetuses should have the right to stay in someone’s body regardless of what that person actually wants.  You’re asking that fetuses should have special rights, at the expense of someone else’s rights.  That is not equality.
Read my response again.
Also, read this.  Learn something.
If you message again with the same arguments and/or even just messaging again without appropriately addressing any of my points (because you still haven’t actually countered them successfully), I’ll just keep sending you these links—or actually, I’ll just let you take personal responsibility for your own education.  I’ve already graciously provided you with my time and generous as well as helpful suggestions and information twice now.  And make sure to check out my references page!  It’s really important to always work on not just our reading comprehension skills, but learn how to take the time to research information, especially when it’s organized conveniently!
Regarding your point about the wire hangers:  It only shows how little you know of the extent of what people had to go through to end their pregnancies for whatever reason and your privilege of never having to lose someone important to you because of this.  You’ve never seen a person bend a wire hanger to be able to try to end their pregnancy or even know a person who has done that?  You think it can’t be done?  The wire hanger is symbolic, it’s not the only way a person did it back then.  But nowadays, it’s more like a symbol for us saying that we’re never going back to the days when abortion was not available as a legal choice.
Sure, there were licensed doctors who did it—it’s still considered back alley.  People still died and got hurt.  The number of people who died or permanently injured themselves was still too high, especially when it was so easily preventable—like making sure the medical procedure was safe, legal, and easily accessible.
The World Health Organization has even declared that:

When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves. By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal. [And the same would be true for anyone who has the ability to get pregnant.]

Read the key messages from this WHO report.  Trigger warning for the graphic picture on page 3 of a failed abortion attempt.

messageisvoid:

Oh, wow.  You really went there.  You used your own brother to put yourself on some pedestal labeled “Don’t Call Me an Ableist! I Took Care of My Disabled Brother!”  And that’s so messed up.  It really is.

Are you not even aware that many caretakers can be horribly ableist?

It’s similar to that weak defense: “I’m not racist, I have a PoC friend!/I’m not a misogynist, I have a sister!” There should be some law out there, like Lewis’ Law.  When you have to defend your ableist/racist/homophobic/misogynist statements with “I’m not _____, because I have a ________ ________” then you’ve only proven your accuser’s point.  I’m sure it already exists and it’s on TVTropes or something.  If not, I dub it Le’s Law.

Being pro-choice doesn’t diminish or stop anyone from celebrating motherhood.  (Read back to my response — also make sure to check out some of the replies/reblogs, there are some good points made.)

Again, I called out your comparison between disabled folks and fetuses as a logical fallacy and even explained why.  It’s literally a false analogy.  Just stop.  It’s also super ableist.  So, seriously.  Stop.  Address my points before attempting a circular argument. (Seriously, read back to the response!)

You want pregnant people and fetuses viewed equally.  That’s not possible.  If you give the fetus the “right to life” then you are taking away the pregnant person’s right to their own body and sometimes the right to their own life.  You are saying that it’s okay for a fetus to use someone else’s body for several months and that’s it’s okay to force someone to go through childbirth against their will for the fetus (both of these things are considered torture).  No one on Earth currently has this right.  We can’t even do it to corpses legally.  But you’re asking that we should be able to do this to pregnant people or people who have the ability to get pregnant?

Talking about fetal biological structures in comparison to actual people is irrelevant and silly.  I’m not going to deny that they’re human.  So what?

If you needed any of my organs/body parts for any reason to live, are you more entitled to your right to life or am I more entitled to my own life and my own body?  Think about that.  You cannot do this without my consent.  And if I said no to you, we’d still have equal status under the law.  Why should fetuses be granted that right?  That’s not equality.  You’re not asking for them to be viewed equally if you think fetuses should have the right to stay in someone’s body regardless of what that person actually wants.  You’re asking that fetuses should have special rights, at the expense of someone else’s rights.  That is not equality.

Read my response again.

Also, read this.  Learn something.

If you message again with the same arguments and/or even just messaging again without appropriately addressing any of my points (because you still haven’t actually countered them successfully), I’ll just keep sending you these links—or actually, I’ll just let you take personal responsibility for your own education.  I’ve already graciously provided you with my time and generous as well as helpful suggestions and information twice now.  And make sure to check out my references page!  It’s really important to always work on not just our reading comprehension skills, but learn how to take the time to research information, especially when it’s organized conveniently!

Regarding your point about the wire hangers:  It only shows how little you know of the extent of what people had to go through to end their pregnancies for whatever reason and your privilege of never having to lose someone important to you because of this.  You’ve never seen a person bend a wire hanger to be able to try to end their pregnancy or even know a person who has done that?  You think it can’t be done?  The wire hanger is symbolic, it’s not the only way a person did it back then.  But nowadays, it’s more like a symbol for us saying that we’re never going back to the days when abortion was not available as a legal choice.

Sure, there were licensed doctors who did it—it’s still considered back alley.  People still died and got hurt.  The number of people who died or permanently injured themselves was still too high, especially when it was so easily preventable—like making sure the medical procedure was safe, legal, and easily accessible.

The World Health Organization has even declared that:

When abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible, women’s health rapidly improves. By contrast, women’s health deteriorates when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal. [And the same would be true for anyone who has the ability to get pregnant.]

Read the key messages from this WHO report.  Trigger warning for the graphic picture on page 3 of a failed abortion attempt.


Show your support for sex ed with this fill-in-the-blank t-shirt. Use a washable or permanent marker to write on the blank area.
Head on over to the Advocates for Youth Shop now! http://bit.ly/1ki2mr9Use the coupon code “FORSEXED14” for a special discount!

Show your support for sex ed with this fill-in-the-blank t-shirt. Use a washable or permanent marker to write on the blank area.

Head on over to the Advocates for Youth Shop now! http://bit.ly/1ki2mr9

Use the coupon code “FORSEXED14” for a special discount!


Want to make a donation to an organization doing good work to help pregnant folks in prison? Check out the The Prison Birth Project: http://theprisonbirthproject.org/donate

Want to make a donation to an organization doing good work to help pregnant folks in prison? Check out the The Prison Birth Projecthttp://theprisonbirthproject.org/donate

pro-choice-or-no-voice:

Keep Abortion Safe & Legal.
We are never going back, keeping abortion safe and legal is step one, but we need to start working on gaining better access for all. - Paige

pro-choice-or-no-voice:

Keep Abortion Safe & Legal.

We are never going back, keeping abortion safe and legal is step one, but we need to start working on gaining better access for all. - Paige

So there’s supposed to be a group skype chat tonight around 9-10 pm?  Is that an open invite to all the pro-choice blogs?  I’m intrigued.

I think I’ve figured out why I’m pro life and I think it’s possibly not a shitty reason

sktagg23:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

rosetyler-in-the-impala:

I’ve done some studying and it’s beginning to look more and more to me that fetuses are, in fact, persons. 

You know that’s amazing
Pregnant people are persons too
Funny though that Pro Lifers are willing to overlook that and assign personhood only to the foetus
-Ash

image

messageisvoid: 
I’m sorry, but your message makes absolutely no sense.  You connect womanhood to motherhood, which is so fallacious and ignores the fact that not every person wants to be a parent.  You also seem to neglect that several people who have had abortions already had children.  And there are many people who have had abortions go on to have children.  It also bothers me that you’re ignorant and insensitive to the fact that there may even be individuals who are tokophobic.  And even those who are tokophobic don’t even have to be pregnant to be parents.  Pregnancy and motherhood does not always go hand in hand.
A fetus is inside the body of an actualized person, someone who feels and thinks.  Fetuses cannot think.  They cannot feel.  Advocating for a ban on abortion is putting a non-sentient, non-feeling being’s life above an actual person.  By giving the fetus the right to the pregnant person’s body, this is not equality.  It is giving a fetus special rights.  No one currently has the right to use another person’s body against their will.  Fetuses do not have will.  Pregnant people do.
Do not compare fetuses to people with disabilities.  That’s ableist as fuck.  And not only is it regressive thinking, it’s a false analogy.  I know how you’re trying to use logic, so please avoid the fallacies.
I answered a similar, but extremely graceful question about the fallacious comparison between fetuses and people with major mental disabilities.  I hope you take the time to read it.
Anon: I actually don’t think there’s a logical discrepancy between being anti-choice and pro-gun.  I guess it would depend.  Is this pro-gun person against gun responsibility, education, and regulation?  What are their views on the Stand Your Ground laws.  How do they view race, if they consider race to be a factor at all?  Many people who want to keep their firearms support gun control and agree that there are individuals who absolutely should not be able to own a gun if they don’t meet certain conditions.  There is a definite cognitive dissonance going on though, if this person is extremely anti-choice but also anti-fair wages and anti-universal healthcare.
Thank you both for sharing your thoughts!

messageisvoid

I’m sorry, but your message makes absolutely no sense.  You connect womanhood to motherhood, which is so fallacious and ignores the fact that not every person wants to be a parent.  You also seem to neglect that several people who have had abortions already had children.  And there are many people who have had abortions go on to have children.  It also bothers me that you’re ignorant and insensitive to the fact that there may even be individuals who are tokophobic.  And even those who are tokophobic don’t even have to be pregnant to be parents.  Pregnancy and motherhood does not always go hand in hand.

A fetus is inside the body of an actualized person, someone who feels and thinks.  Fetuses cannot think.  They cannot feel.  Advocating for a ban on abortion is putting a non-sentient, non-feeling being’s life above an actual person.  By giving the fetus the right to the pregnant person’s body, this is not equality.  It is giving a fetus special rights.  No one currently has the right to use another person’s body against their will.  Fetuses do not have will.  Pregnant people do.

Do not compare fetuses to people with disabilities.  That’s ableist as fuck.  And not only is it regressive thinking, it’s a false analogy.  I know how you’re trying to use logic, so please avoid the fallacies.

I answered a similar, but extremely graceful question about the fallacious comparison between fetuses and people with major mental disabilities.  I hope you take the time to read it.

Anon: I actually don’t think there’s a logical discrepancy between being anti-choice and pro-gun.  I guess it would depend.  Is this pro-gun person against gun responsibility, education, and regulation?  What are their views on the Stand Your Ground laws.  How do they view race, if they consider race to be a factor at all?  Many people who want to keep their firearms support gun control and agree that there are individuals who absolutely should not be able to own a gun if they don’t meet certain conditions.  There is a definite cognitive dissonance going on though, if this person is extremely anti-choice but also anti-fair wages and anti-universal healthcare.

Thank you both for sharing your thoughts!

Drago () submitted:

Did you know that there are clinics right here in the US that allow women to deliver perfectly healthy babies, which the doctors then kill without any mercy or remorse? Or that babies are being burned alive by saline solution? And that they can feel absolutely everything you do to them??

Did you know that there are sites on the Internet that allow people to research facts, which people then ignore and share false information and propaganda without mercy or remorse?

God u really have nothing better to do? Doesn't talking about abortions all day long get old?

Anonymous

You’re really going to ask me if I have nothing better to do when you’re leaving an anonymous hate message on a blog that supports full reproductive rights and overall social justice?  Nice one.

UN Warns Countries With Draconian Abortion Bans That They’re Violating Human Rights

United Nations officials are urging several countries with particularly harsh abortion bans to increase legalization of the medical procedure, pointing out their current laws could be in breach of international human rights treaties…

The United Nations has long taken the stance that countries should not deprive women of their reproductive options. Previous UN reports have urged countries around the world to remove their “unnecessary barriers” to abortion, pointing out that thousands of young, poor women in developing nations are dying because of illegal abortion procedures in unsafe conditions.

This isn’t an issue that the United States is necessarily above, either. Although abortion is legal in this country, lawmakers have still imposed significant hurdles to the procedure on the state level that prevent many women from being able to exercise their reproductive rights. Perhaps the best example of that unfolding dynamic isTexas, where a harsh new law has forced half of the state’s abortion clinics to close and left thousands of women with few options. Earlier this year, a reproductive rights group took that case all the way to the United Nations, arguing that Texas has created a human rights crisis.

Pro-Life Nurse Sues Family Planning Clinic for Not Hiring Her to Do the Job She Refused to Do

aka14kgold:

nanner:

howprolifeofyou:

tl;dr: a pro-life woman applies for a nursing job at a family planning clinic that requires nurses to prescribe birth control to patients, but refused to do so because she believes that birth control = abortions. so, she’s suing them for not hiring her for a job she refuses to do. 

Well, they did take away her Jebus (and SCOTUS) granted right to shame and harass women and other people with uteruses for their reproductive choices. HOW DARE THEY?!

THIS IS SO CONFUSING

WHO THINKS THEY WILL BE HIRED FOR A JOB THAT THEY CANNOT (WILL NOT) DO

WHO THINKS THEY SHOULD GET PAID TO NOT DO A JOB

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND HOW DID THEY GRADUATE KINDERGARTEN

ethiopienne:

Three Reasons the Hobby Lobby Decision Is Worse for Women of Color (via Miriam Zoila Pérez, Colorlines)
You’ve probably heard that the Supreme Court laid down a pretty bad decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case, essentially giving some corporations the right to deny coverage of certain types of contraception to their employees based on religious freedom.
We won’t know the exact impact of this ruling until we see how many of the eligible corporations (closely-held private companies that most are interpreting based on the IRS definition that they be 50 percent owned by five or less people) actually choose to use this right given to them by the Supreme Court on Monday. Nine out of 10 businesses are estimated to be closely held, and an estimated 52 percent of private sector employees work for closely held companies. So we’re talking about a potential impact on just a few thousand employees, or a few million, depending on how many businesses choose to exercise this right. We know that in addition to Hobby Lobby, there are at least 82 other companies who’ve already been challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate.
While much proverbial ink has been spilled speculating about the impact this will have, few have talked about how women of color might fare under this ruling. On its face there is nothing about this ruling that singles out women of color. But because of our political and economic realities, women of color often bare the brunt of the negative impacts of restrictions on women’s health anyway. Here are three reasons why women of color may fare worse under this decision:

1. The Cost of Birth Control
Those who can’t afford to pay for their birth control out of pocket if their employers deny coverage will face the biggest challenges. Women of color are more likely to be low-income, and also more likely to work a minimum wage job. And as Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, getting an IUD could cost as much as an entire month’s rent working at the minimum wage. And let’s not forget that contraceptives aren’t only prescribed for preventing pregnancies—they’re also used to manage severe menstrual symptoms and conditions likepolycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. Women of color who are already struggling to make ends meet may face increased burdens. That could mean doing things like splitting one pack of pills between two women each month, as Kimberly Inez McGuire reports two Latina women living in South Texas have been doing.
Elizabeth Dawes Gay, writing at Ebony, elaborates on how this impacts black women specifically:

“In 2011, more than half of Black people were covered by private (usually employer-sponsored) health insurance, either through their own employer or that of a family member, and 57 million adult women of all races were covered through employer-sponsored insurance.  If the behavior of companies like Hobby Lobby becomes the norm rather than the exception, it could impact contraceptive access for millions of people in the U.S. and have a disproportionate impact on Black women who, with lower income and wealth on average, may not be able to afford to pay for their contraception out-of-pocket.”

Renee Bracey Sherman also wrote about how this decision could affect Black women. For Asian-American and Pacific Islander women, already low rates of contraceptive use could be even lower if this decision places another economic barrier in their way.
2. The Risks of Unplanned Pregnancy
The risks of having to carry an unintended pregnancy to term are much higher for women of color, especially black women. Black women are four times more likely to die during childbirth than white women, which means potentially being unable to prevent a pregnancy due to the financial barriers put in place by their religious employers. And it’s not just death that women of color are at higher risk for during childbirth—it’s also infant mortality, low-infant birth weight and premature delivery—all things that pose significant long-term risks to the mother and child.
3. History
Women of color have already had to deal with a long history of reproductive control at the hands of employers and the government. From slave owners’ manipulation of Black women’s reproduction, to non-consensual sterilization of Latinas in public hospitals, to welfare reform and family caps limiting the number of children welfare recipients can have, women of color have long had to fight for the right to control their own reproduction. This case just adds another layer to controlling fertility, this time at the hands of employers.
At this point it’s no longer news that those in our communities who are the most vulnerable suffer the most when increased restrictions and barriers are put into place—and pregnancy and reproduction has been a hotbed of these kinds of restrictions over the last few years. As the Obama administration figures out how they might fill the gap left by this ruling (even the majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, offers this as a solution), we have to keep in mind that women of color are once again going to be relying on a safety net to get basic needs met. And that’s a safety net with more and more holes. 

ethiopienne:

Three Reasons the Hobby Lobby Decision Is Worse for Women of Color (via Miriam Zoila Pérez, Colorlines)

You’ve probably heard that the Supreme Court laid down a pretty bad decision on Monday in the Hobby Lobby case, essentially giving some corporations the right to deny coverage of certain types of contraception to their employees based on religious freedom.

We won’t know the exact impact of this ruling until we see how many of the eligible corporations (closely-held private companies that most are interpreting based on the IRS definition that they be 50 percent owned by five or less people) actually choose to use this right given to them by the Supreme Court on Monday. Nine out of 10 businesses are estimated to be closely held, and an estimated 52 percent of private sector employees work for closely held companies. So we’re talking about a potential impact on just a few thousand employees, or a few million, depending on how many businesses choose to exercise this right. We know that in addition to Hobby Lobby, there are at least 82 other companies who’ve already been challenging the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate.

While much proverbial ink has been spilled speculating about the impact this will have, few have talked about how women of color might fare under this ruling. On its face there is nothing about this ruling that singles out women of color. But because of our political and economic realities, women of color often bare the brunt of the negative impacts of restrictions on women’s health anyway. Here are three reasons why women of color may fare worse under this decision:

1. The Cost of Birth Control

Those who can’t afford to pay for their birth control out of pocket if their employers deny coverage will face the biggest challenges. Women of color are more likely to be low-income, and also more likely to work a minimum wage job. And as Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, getting an IUD could cost as much as an entire month’s rent working at the minimum wage. And let’s not forget that contraceptives aren’t only prescribed for preventing pregnancies—they’re also used to manage severe menstrual symptoms and conditions likepolycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis. Women of color who are already struggling to make ends meet may face increased burdens. That could mean doing things like splitting one pack of pills between two women each month, as Kimberly Inez McGuire reports two Latina women living in South Texas have been doing.

Elizabeth Dawes Gay, writing at Ebony, elaborates on how this impacts black women specifically:

“In 2011, more than half of Black people were covered by private (usually employer-sponsored) health insurance, either through their own employer or that of a family member, and 57 million adult women of all races were covered through employer-sponsored insurance.  If the behavior of companies like Hobby Lobby becomes the norm rather than the exception, it could impact contraceptive access for millions of people in the U.S. and have a disproportionate impact on Black women who, with lower income and wealth on average, may not be able to afford to pay for their contraception out-of-pocket.”

Renee Bracey Sherman also wrote about how this decision could affect Black women. For Asian-American and Pacific Islander women, already low rates of contraceptive use could be even lower if this decision places another economic barrier in their way.

2. The Risks of Unplanned Pregnancy

The risks of having to carry an unintended pregnancy to term are much higher for women of color, especially black women. Black women are four times more likely to die during childbirth than white women, which means potentially being unable to prevent a pregnancy due to the financial barriers put in place by their religious employers. And it’s not just death that women of color are at higher risk for during childbirth—it’s also infant mortality, low-infant birth weight and premature delivery—all things that pose significant long-term risks to the mother and child.

3. History

Women of color have already had to deal with a long history of reproductive control at the hands of employers and the government. From slave owners’ manipulation of Black women’s reproduction, to non-consensual sterilization of Latinas in public hospitals, to welfare reform and family caps limiting the number of children welfare recipients can have, women of color have long had to fight for the right to control their own reproduction. This case just adds another layer to controlling fertility, this time at the hands of employers.

At this point it’s no longer news that those in our communities who are the most vulnerable suffer the most when increased restrictions and barriers are put into place—and pregnancy and reproduction has been a hotbed of these kinds of restrictions over the last few years. As the Obama administration figures out how they might fill the gap left by this ruling (even the majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, offers this as a solution), we have to keep in mind that women of color are once again going to be relying on a safety net to get basic needs met. And that’s a safety net with more and more holes.