Oregon Columnist Highlights Anti-Asian Racism of Sex-Selective Abortion Bans

When Oregon passed a bill to require insurers to cover abortion for all women — including undocumented women, there was one more component that additionally drew controversy with conservatives, and even those receptive to abortion and immigrant rights: sex-selective abortions.

In Monday’s installment of the Lady Things column at Willamette Week, Crystal Contreras tackled the underlying racism and overall ignorance behind why selective abortion bans even emerged in the first place.

“First of all, don’t be fooled by those complaining about how they have to pay for other people’s abortions. No other procedure is politicized like abortions and plenty of us have to pay for medical procedures we won’t ever in our lives need,” Contreras begins. “You might also notice that not nearly as many people are freaking out about vasectomies, which by the way, are also covered now under HB 3391.”

Contreras continues:

Now I thought for less than a second about the phrase “sex-selective abortion” before deciding that it sounded weird and maybe kind of racist. It took not much longer to Google and find out that yes, the term “sex-selective abortion” is often a racist dog whistle based on stereotypes that Asians and Asian Americans prefer boy children over girl children. Seven states have enacted laws banning the procedure in spite of how uncommon it actually is. This means that the doctor needs to somehow discern a person’s intentions behind getting an abortion, which can then lead to them denying the procedure based on racist stereotypes.

In summation, sex selective abortion bans emerged in the first place due to stereotypes about Asian Americans, and they serve to not only potentially bar Asian American women from making fundamental choices about their bodies, but also further demonize this demographic.

Reproductive coercion in China and many other countries is a serious problem, but blocking access to abortion and forcing women to give birth is another equally egregious form of reproductive coercion that many GOP, anti-abortion lawmakers are guilty of promoting in the United States. At this point, it’s typical of anti-choice lawmakers to deflect on accusations of sexism and infringing on women’s rights by pivoting to racist, often inaccurate depictions of other global societies as barbaric and uncivilized.

But if America thinks it’s OK to allow the state to control women’s bodies and deny them reproductive choices on the basis of race, do we really have any right to assume a position of smug moral superiority?

“This sort of dangerous rhetoric can lead to violence against people of color, and others seeking medical care, so it’s necessary to deconstruct the history and meaning behind dog whistle terms like these and what they actually represent,” Contreras concludes. “Maybe someday we’ll live in a world where abortions are considered a standard medical procedure and access to health care isn’t influenced by racist stereotypes, but until then we have to bring light to this racist bullshit when we see it.”

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.