The 1913 Women's Suffrage Procession: revitalizing the hope for female enfranchisement against all odds

Women suffragists at the head of the parade, marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, with the U.S. Capitol in background, on March 3, 1913. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

BY: JACQUELINE QIU, WINTER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

On March 3, 1913, the Women’s Suffrage Procession manifested a new energy for the suffrage movement, paving the way for the landmark 19th amendment to be passed in Congress. A substantial procession of 8,000 marchers, 9 bands, 4 mounted brigades, and 20 floats gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue to march to the Treasury Building for an allegorical performance demanding necessity of female enfranchisement. Organized by the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA), this gathering of women demanding socio-political equality occurred on a strategic day in order to denounce the lack of female representation in the political sphere. These women marched on the same route that the new President, Woodrow Wilson, would undertake the very next day, March 4, en route to his presidential inauguration. The 1913 women’s suffrage procession was expertly planned in order to fall on this exact date, in the presence of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. The chairs of the NAWSA, Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, wished to send a provocative message that indicated a new chapter of resistance to gender-based disenfranchisement.

Cover of program for the National American Woman Suffrage Association procession, showing woman, in elaborate attire, with cape, blowing long horn, from which is draped a "votes for women" banner, on decorated horse, with U.S. Capitol in background. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

““The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” ”

A diverse group of women gathered in order to justly demand the passage of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in Congress. Proposed in 1878, this amendment prohibited the denial of enfranchisement, based on gender, and thus exemplified the core philosophy of the women’s suffrage movement. However, this amendment had been stalled for the last 35 years; this reality would not be tolerated anymore by the dedicated suffragists. With elaborate floats, decor, and songs, this procession possessed the intent to make that bold statement in a concrete way. In fact, the procession was designed to present an argument for the validity of female enfranchisement; each section highlighted the distinct accomplishments of the respective participants. There were delegations from states, specific professions (like business or law), and universities. 

Inez Milholland rides Grey Dawn as the herald of the Woman Suffrage Procession, March 3, 1913

Harris & Ewing, photographer. Records of the National Woman's Party, Library of Congress

The first sight of the procession was Inez Milholland, dressed in white on top of a white horse named Grey Dawn, represented the ideal of female suffrage. As a prominent lawyer and activist, she represented the New Woman, whose voice would no longer be suppressed by patriarchal, electoral institutions. As the New Women of the 20th century, this generation of women rebelled against the establishment of societal expectations and challenged gender norms in various ways. From dress to behavior, a new wave of change was being realized during the 1913 Women’s Suffrage Procession. This next generation of women pursued female equality, not only in the political and legal sphere, but in all areas of existence. Feminism was on display, as each woman had a specific individual cause that they stood for, in addition to standing together in a collective mission for female enfranchisement while marching down the National Mall. 

“We demand an amendment to the Constitution of the United States enfranchising the women of this country.”

The "Great Demand" float in the Woman Suffrage Procession, March 3, 1913

Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University

The first float, which held the message of the “Great Demand,” represented the newfound commitment and energy that was needed by the suffrage movement to actively achieve their goal. Suffragettes were no longer content with accepting limited voting rights in bits or in one state/jurisdiction; a nationwide enfranchisement was necessary. 

March 3, 1913 photo at the Suffrage Parade, showing marchers (left to right) Mrs. Russell McLennan, Mrs. Althea Taft, Mrs. Lew Bridges, Mrs. Richard Coke Burleson, Alberta Hill and Miss F. Ragsdale. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Marie Louise Bottineau-Baldwin.

Suffragettes of color were a prominent feature in the 1913 Women’s Suffrage Procession. More than 40 black women, with their specific state delegations, marched together for a future of political enfranchisement and equality. Leading banners from their sections, they encapsulated a conjoint end of racial justice with achieving the right to vote for women. There were even 25 black students from the Delta Sigma Theta sorority at Howard University, with as many as 6 graduates. Those women, with their respected academic regalia, included prominent suffragists such as Mary Church Terrell. Additionally, Marie Louise Bottineau-Baldwin, a famous Native American lawyer who advocated for the rights of her people with the Society of American Indians, marched in the procession. Her presence highlighted the relevant role of suffragists of color to re-energizing the women’s suffrage movement. White female suffragists did not only function as important contributors; women of color actively contributed to the health and vitality of this collective cause of suffrage.

Ida B. Wells-Burnett

However, the participation and advocacy of suffragists of color did not function without complications. For example, Ida B.Wells-Burnett, a prominent African American suffrage activist, was denied the opportunity to march at the front of the Illinois delegation like she had originally intended. It is important to remember that she, as a black woman, still faced more barriers to her activism than her white counterparts, who as organizers of this procession relegated her to march at the back of the Illinois delegation. However, Wells-Burnett refused to let the color of her skin dictate the depth of her role in advocating for women's suffrage; eventually, she found a way to march at the front of her delegation. The efforts of Ida B. Wells-Burnett serve as a reminder that racial justice is a conjoint end with women’s suffrage, occupying the same status of importance.

Part of the 1913 Suffrage Parade. The signs read "In The Home,” and "Homemakers.” Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession seemed to have all the components to be successful, but faced unprecedented obstacles. A crowd of 250,000 people, mainly men who arrived in the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration, formed a physical barrier against the marching procession of women. These spectators blocked the parade route, accosting the women in the street and stopping their forward movement. A physical confrontation resulted within the parade, as the crowd sought to advance their own agenda at the expense of this tightly organized procession of women. Even though the participants on horseback sought to block these individuals, the sheer number of spectators disrupted the women’s march to their destination, the Treasury building. In fact, a sea of hostile, jeering men shouted rude, explicit insults at the women. Harassment, cat-calling, and sexual propositions flew in the face of each woman in the parade as they persisted onward.

The crowd converges on marchers, blocking the parade route during March 3, 1913, suffrage procession, in Washington, District of Columbia. Courtesy of Library of Congress.

Yet, the bravery of these women was evident, as many continued on in the face of the vile opposition of the surrounding crowd. Even with tears, and psychological hurt, they persisted without interruption or hesitation. Some even carried banner poles, flags, and hat pins to ward off the attack. Physical unrest was a challenge that would be overcome together, with a collective effort. It was in fact necessary to assert their independent voices, and defend their bodies, when the Capitol Police was unable, or unwilling, to intervene. It was only until U.S. army troops entered the crowd that the spectators disappeared from harassing these women. En route to demanding their right to vote, it is telling that these female participants also had to, in an autonomous manner, affirm their own safety against an opposition that was threatened by their willingness to break traditional patriarchal norms. For these women, giving up was not an option, as there was too much at stake in their quest for socio-political equality.

The crowd surrounds and slows a Red Cross ambulance during the Women's suffrage procession, on March 3, 1913. Dozens of marchers were injured during the march, shoved and tripped by spectators. Courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession on March 3, 1913, made notable headlines in newspapers around the country. The disruptive unrest of the crowd yielded 100 participants that were eventually hospitalized as a consequence of their involvement in the parade. Therefore, as the public deemed it unfathomable that the police did nothing to stop the blatant disruption of the ongoing procession, scandal ensued. An investigation of the ineffectiveness of the Capitol police commenced in the following days, resulting in the firing of the Washington, D.C. superintendent of police. It is clear that the police did not value this procession, which was threatened by disruptive crowds, as a cause worth protecting.The women of the NAWSA took a stand for themselves, in the face of substantial resistance to their efforts, and did not back down.

Tableau presented by the Women's Suffrage Association, on the U.S. Treasury building steps, on March 3, 1913. Courtesy of Library of Congress.

The women’s suffrage procession garnered more attention than the events of the next day, the presidential inauguration. On the same steps of the suffragists occupied, President Wilson was seemingly an afterthought in the shadow of the previous events. The suffragettes, who even suffered injuries to march against the physical barrier of the spectators, took center stage. The procession of these bold suffragettes renewed energy and public attention to their cause of pursuing and realizing the passage of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment and the “Great Demand.” The suffrage movement needed this jolt of energy in order to affirm greater vitality and vigor in its character. This reinvigoration of the suffrage movement thus created powerful momentum, as in the next 7 years, the right to vote for women would be concretely realized in the political and legal sphere. The 19th amendment benefited from the events of March 3, 1913; a newfound spirit that fought for gender egalitarianism in enfranchisement manifested in the actions of these brave women. The women marching in the 1913 procession unequivocally valued a future where the next generations of women would experience socio-political equality.

References: 

1. Taylor, Alan. “The 1913 Women’s Suffrage Parade.” The Atlantic. March 1, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/03/100-years-ago-the-1913-womens-suffrage-parade/100465/ 

2. “1913 Woman Suffrage Procession.” U.S. National Park Service. 2020. https://www.nps.gov/articles/woman-suffrage-procession1913.htm 

Jacqueline Qiu is a junior at Middlebury College, double majoring in French and Political Science. She is passionate about humanitarianism, women in politics, mental health awareness and advocacy, and French language and literature. On campus, she is the Co-President of the French club and Active Minds Middlebury

The Unpaid Care Burden Heightened Due to the Pandemic

Graphic by Sorbetto via Getty Images.

BY: CAROLINE PITMAN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Times of crisis often amplify existing inequalities within society. From the disproportionate amount of black Americans dying from COVID-19 to the daily inequalities faced by women, COVID-19 is not a crisis that affects all equally. While the hope of a vaccine is on the horizon, the pandemic shows no sign of stopping within the United States and, a vaccine, while essential, will not solve rampant gender inequality. 

Unfortunately, the devastating economic and societal consequences of COVID-19 are more likely to affect women. For women, the unpaid care burden is simply a part of life. Even during a pandemic, women are more likely to shoulder the majority of unpaid work. This essential work, from childcare to household tasks, is undervalued and prevalent throughout the globe. With the mass closing of childcare facilities and schools, women with children are at a particular disadvantage.  In a recent New York Times pole, "Seventy percent of women say they’re fully or mostly responsible for housework during lockdown, and 66 percent say so for child care." One exacerbated role  brought on by the pandemic is the role of teacher. Long term closures have moved classrooms online, and parents, who are more likely to be women, assume the role of teacher in addition to their usual responsibilities. [1]

According to the United Nations, women do three times the amount of unpaid housework compared to men. [2] The pandemic has increased the amount of unpaid work, including increased cleaning. From longer waits at the grocery store (a task more likely to be done by women) to food shortages, the daily tasks, primarily done by women, are taking longer. 

The problem of the unpaid care burden and the devaluation of this burden goes across cultures and countries. Despite advancement in women’s rights, this burden both hinders economic growth and gender equality on a larger scale. With women assuming the majority of the unpaid care burden at home, this leaves less time for formal employment. 

Women are more likely to be underpaid and more likely to work in the informal economy. Jobs, such as hotel cleaners or child care professionals, are often paid under the table or income is not reported correctly. In times of pandemic and mass unemployment, this lack of formal work is a detriment to women who try to access government assistance. The lack of regularity in employment poses a serious problem for women, as they on average, have less money saved than men. [3]

In terms of formal employment, women are more likely to work in the health sector according to The World Health Organization. Globally, women make up 70% of the health sector. [4]

This creates a situation where a women’s care burden is heightened as a result of the pandemic. Both at home and at work, the demands are greater. This translates to often longer hours at one’s place of formal employment and a heightened burden at home. 

In the United States, the pandemic is not over and is still spreading throughout the globe. The promise of a vaccine will hopefully diminish the effect of the deadly disease; however, until then, women will continue to be at a disadvantage. Despite the urgency of the pandemic, women’s rights and the fight for equality must remain at the forefront of public policy decisions. In an unequal world, we must account for these inequalities, particularly in times of crisis. 

References

[1] Cain Miller, Claire. “Nearly Half of Men Say They Do Most of the Home Schooling. 3 Percent of Women Agree.” The New York Times, 6 May, 2020.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/upshot/pandemic-chores-homeschooling-gender.html

[2] Nesbit-Ahmed, Zahrah and Subrahmanian, Ramya. “Caring in the time of COVID-19: Gender, unpaid care work and social protection.” UNICEF, 23 April, 2020. https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/caring-in-the-time-of-covid-19-gender-unpaid-care-work-and-social-protection/ 

[3] Adamczyk, Alicia. “Women lag behind men in retirement savings—here are 3 things they can do to catch up.” CNBC, 18 November 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/women-are-still-lagging-behind-men-when-it-comes-to-saving.html

[4] Boniol et al. “Gender equity in the health workforce: Analysis of 104 countries.” World Health Organization, March 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311314/WHO-HIS-HWF-Gender-WP1-2019.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Caroline Pitman is a student at Catholic University in Washington, D.C, where she studies Politics, History, and Theology. She is passionate about increasing the number of women in elected offices and in government positions and plans to pursue a career in law. In her free time, she loves to read historical non-fiction books, spend time with her yellow lab, and explore Washington, D.C.

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

A Female Vice President

BY: BELLA LEVAVI, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

When I first heard that Joe Biden planned to pick a woman as his running mate, I was unimpressed. I knew that he was relying on the female suburban vote in a couple of key states for his victory, and picking a woman would boost his chances. This did not seem like a step forward; it was a tactical move that disguised itself as progressivism. 

I was angry that the women running for the Democratic nomination had to spend so much of their time and energy convincing people they were electable that it hindered themselves from gaining the momentum needed to win. I was angry that Joe Biden spent his campaign picking up endorsements from key figures in the party, especially right before Super Tuesday, when that attention could have gone to women candidates instead. I was angry that the Democratic party did not set their priorities to bolster well qualified female candidates, and let Biden passively sweep the country. And they think they are throwing us women a bone now? 

But now, four months after he announced his running mate will be a woman, I am feeling a slight change of heart. 

The biggest headlines for the past several months on the presidential race--albeit clearly not the biggest headlines of the moment--have not been about rallies or squabbles between the candidates, they have been incredibly uplifting stories of the strongest female politicians of the moment. 

Because of Joe Biden’s announcement, I get to learn about California congresswoman Karen Bass. A politician who is well respected across the political spectrum, who is head of the Black Caucus, and is outspoken in police reform and health care.

Since it is a female pick, Tammy Duckworth’s picture fills newspapers across the country. A disabled Asian-American who cares deeply about progressive issues, and certainly does not fit the cookie-cutter idea of what a politician looks like. I am lucky to be currently represented by her and know that she would do a great job taking charge of the whole country. 

Thanks to Biden, stories of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren continue circulating through my news feed. Both well qualified presidential candidates, who clearly have bigger seats in their future. Harris, the Attorney General of California, and Warren, probably the smartest politician of all time who is currently the Massachusetts senator. Both dominated debates during the nomination process and should be held close by the Democratic party. 

I finally got to learn about the great Susan Rice. Once National Security Council Director under Obama, she is fluent in foreign policy. And I know she will speak her mind when things get stressful in the situation room. 

Gretchen Whitmer got to sweep headlines for weeks. As the governor of Michigan, she dominated the news cycle for being strict on Coronavirus and defying President Trump’s demands, but stayed in the news for longer as she attracted attention as a possible national figure whose fierceness people could see translating well to second in command. 

Although I was originally angry that the Democratic party thought they could win over women post smiting us in the primary, I ended up having a field day learning about these incredible people fighting for their local constituents. I learned that although the folks in the national party may not be as progressive as I want them to be, incredible women are representing the party across the county, and I’m happy we will at least get some say at the table if we flip the country this November.

Bella Levavi is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in Government and English. She is involved in Smith's newspaper the Sophian and the college radio station. She is passionate about vegetarian co-ops, writing, and social justice.

The Impact of School Reopening Plans on Women

Illustration by Nat Thomas for St. Louis Public Radio.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world unlike any other phenomena; every day we see people and businesses making difficult decisions, trying to balance financial sustainability with health. One decision that must be made as we approach the end of the summer is how education will take place in the fall. In my younger brother’s school district, the Board of Education initially discussed using all public schools to educate elementary school-aged children in-person, and virtually educating older children who could stay at home alone. Following outrage in response to this idea, the Board of Education eventually decided to delay all in-person activities until at least January of 2021, at which time the situation will be re-assessed.

Personally, I have not come to a definitive opinion on the “best” fall plan. Children are at a lesser risk in this pandemic, and I believe that early education is critical to long-term development and mental health. However I also recognize that normal in-person education would put teachers and other school staff members at risk, especially in lower grades where children would struggle wearing masks correctly.

Although I have not yet come to a conclusion about the best fall plan, I think it is important to consider all aspects of the issue. Gender and gender bias must be taken into consideration in answering the fall reopening question. Societally, women often face the brunt of childcare. They are recognized as homemakers and not breadwinners. Should schools close this fall, many families will need near constant childcare. This responsibility will likely fall to mothers, given established societal expectations. Even without these expectations, women may differentially suffer from the increased burden of childcare. Because of the gender wage-gap, in two-parent families with a mother and a father, the mother is likely to have a lower income, and therefore it would make financial sense for the mother to become the main provider of childcare. Additionally, single fathers are far less common than single mothers [1]; families with only one adult member will struggle to balance childcare with income, and this struggle will differentially and negatively impact women. Opening schools will also present unique challenges for women. There are significantly more women that teach than men, so women will face a disproportionately higher risk with in-person education. 

It is critical to analyze all spheres of life in approaching this pandemic. Each day we neglect to follow social distancing guidelines is another day that we delay a return to normal life. This fall, students will face the consequences of our continued carelessness. There is not necessarily one correct answer to reopening schools this fall, and it will likely be a personal decision whether or not to attend school. However, it is important to acknowledge that whatever decision we make will likely differentially impact women, as they already face societal and financial discrimination. We must consider and manage all aspects of health, including the physical and mental health of children, teachers, and parents.

References 

[1] Livingston, Gretchen. “The Rise of Single Fathers.” Pew Research Center. July 2, 2013. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

The Real World: The Inaccessibility of Birth Control

Photo by Shape Magazine.

BY: JULIET SCHULMAN-HALL, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

With more people stuck at home and less access to reliable forms of birth control, the inequalities of our society are being accentuated—specifically for women, and most especially for women of color. Tens of millions of people across the United States have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, many of whom can no longer afford health insurance. Without health insurance, the cost of birth control is anywhere between $240 to over $1,000 a year [1]. This cost is the reason “more than a third of female[s]...[have] struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives” [2]. The cost is not pocket change, it affects people’s lives.

Making matters worse, the United States Supreme Court ruled on July 8th that the Trump administration could “gut the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health insurance plans cover women’s essential preventive services, which includes contraceptive care” [3] allowing any employer claiming a religious or moral objection to contraception to be exempted from the requirement that contraception be included in their employees’ health insurance plans. Seven of the nine United States Supreme Court justices voted to allow employers to violate women’s rights to control their own bodies, and to strip them of access to affordable and accessible birth control. The Supreme Court’s attack on women continues, as the justices have ordered a lower court to “reconsider two abortion victories,” involving “an Indiana forced ultrasound law and a law forcing teenagers to notify parents of their decision to seek abortion care” [3]. More and more, the United States government continues to infringe upon the private lives and rights of women. 

The CDC reported that in “2015-2017, 64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception” [4]. Without a universal requirement that health plans cover contraception, many of these 64.9% of women will not be able to afford their birth control. Birth control is not only integral to preventing pregnancy but to eliminating the difficult and otherwise often untreated symptoms of disorders such as PCOS or endometriosis, among others [5]. Even if one does not need birth control for a disorder, it has been shown in a Guttmacher study that “a majority of women say birth control allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families (63%), support themselves financially (56%), complete their education (51%), or keep or get a job (50%)” [2]. Thus, the decision by the United States Supreme Court is not a small matter. It is one that directly targets and perpetuates gender inequalities in U.S. society, at a time when tens of millions of people are unemployed, and unable to afford proper healthcare. 

The most immediate and obvious result of a radical increase in unemployment and an increase in the numbers of employers who are not required to provide birth control in their health plans, will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies resulting from a lack of access to affordable birth control. Many of these unplanned pregnancies will stem from communities of color as the pandemic has been affecting these communities disproportionately. In fact, a study at the Guttmacher Institute found that a disproportionate number of women of color have lost their jobs, resulting in many having little to no access to affordable contraceptives [6]. Thus, the pandemic and ruling from the Supreme Court not only directly harms women, impinging on their rights and their independence, but is also highly likely to disproportionately harm women of color.

Nearly a century ago, on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, finally granting women the right to vote—half a century after black males were granted the right to vote in the Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870. A century after women’s suffrage was won, the fight for women’s rights continues [7]. Today, many women not only lack control of their own fates, but are even kept from exercising the freedom to control their own bodies. 

References

[1] Kosova, Elly. “How Much Do Different Kinds of Birth Control Cost without Insurance?” NWHN, November 30, 2017. https://www.nwhn.org/much-different-kinds-birth-control-cost-without-insurance/.

[2] Parenthood, Planned. “7 Facts You Need to Know About Birth Control and Costs.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Accessed July 16, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/facts-birth-control-coverage.

[3] Manian, Maya, Feminist Newswire, and Nan Aron. “Reproductive Justice Under Assault at the Supreme Court.” Ms. Magazine, July 10, 2020. https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/09/reproductive-justice-under-assault-at-the-supreme-court/.

[4] Daniels, Kimberly. “Products - Data Briefs - Number 327 - December 2018.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 14, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db327.htm.

[5] “Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill.” Center for Young Women's Health, June 22, 2020. https://youngwomenshealth.org/2011/10/18/medical-uses-of-the-birth-control-pill/.

[6] Lindberg, Laura, Alicia VandeVusse, Jennifer Mueller, and Marielle Kirstein. “Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 2020 Guttmacher Survey of Reproductive Health Experiences.” Guttmacher Institute, June 24, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/early-impacts-covid-19-pandemic-findings-2020-guttmacher-survey-reproductive-health.

[7] Panetta, Grace. “Today Is National Voter Registration Day. The Evolution of American Voting Rights in 242 Years Shows How Far We've Come - and How Far We Still Have to Go.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 24, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-women-got-the-right-to-vote-american-voting-rights-timeline-2018-10.

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

American Abortion Access in the Time of a Pandemic

Photograph by Glenna Gordon for CNN.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

About one quarter of all American women will use abortion services by the age of 45 [1]. Access to safe abortions is a human right; the ability to determine whether and when to have a child has significant implications for the economic, social, and political equality of women [1]. Despite its essential nature, the right to receive an abortion has faced new restrictions in the age of COVID-19.

Many individuals are arguing to end abortion services during the pandemic, but these arguments do not stem from the desire for safety. Rather, they serve as a continuation of the long-standing debate concerning the morality of abortion. According to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, some argue that reproductive healthcare services interfere with hospital resources that should instead be going to COVID-19 patients in critical condition [2]. Others argue that providing reproductive healthcare services is not consistent with social distancing [2]. Both of these arguments are misguided. Most reproductive healthcare occurs in an “ambulatory setting,” and thus does not take away from the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [2]. Delaying reproductive healthcare might actually increase the demand for hospital resources, as pregnancies resulting in termination at later stages face significantly higher risks of complications [2]. Additionally, reproductive healthcare settings are taking steps to mitigate the risk of contagion by offering telemedicine, enhanced hygiene protocols, and infection screening prior to appointments [2]. Like all medical environments, practices providing reproductive healthcare are effectively minimizing the risk of infection and ensuring maximum possible social distancing [2]. These truths have not prevented the restriction of abortion access, however. Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have supported the cessation of both medication and surgical abortion, using a much more insidious argument: that abortion procedures are “elective” or “nonessential” [1].

The restriction of abortion care is always negative, but is particularly dangerous during this pandemic. The classification of abortions as “elective” suggests that women’s equality and autonomy is expendable [1]. It also implicitly questions a woman’s judgement to make decisions concerning her own body. In medicine, an “elective procedure” is one that can be delayed without consequences [1]. Considering the increasing risks associated with delaying abortion, and maximum limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed legally, abortion is in no way “elective,” and classifying it as such will mean that “many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all” [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this might mean that families will face the undue financial burden of an additional child, or that women will face an unplanned pregnancy resulting from intimate partner violence, which has increased as a result of quarantine orders [1]. 

Restricted access to abortion care is particularly harmful to women of color. Many women of color already experience limited access to abortion [3]. Women of color face income inequality, which means that they are more likely to be covered by Medicaid and in turn impacted by the Hyde Amendment, which bands federal funds for abortion care in Medicaid [3]. Women of color also face explicit racism; anti-choice organizations have targeted Black and Latina women with the false rhetoric that they devalue human life, even in the womb [3]. Restricting abortion access, which is already restricted to women of color, as a result of this pandemic, which also disproportionately impacts people of color, will significantly harm minority American populations.

We cannot sit idly by while women, and especially women of color, watch their rights fade away. Abortion is undeniably an essential healthcare service. Those who argue that the COVID-19 pandemic warrants restricted reproductive healthcare are either misguided or ill-intentioned. 

References

[1] Bayefsky, Michelle J., Deborah Bartz, and Katie L. Watson. “Abortion during the Covid-19 Pandemic—Ensuring Access to an Essential Health Service.” New England Journal of Medicine (2020): 382. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008006. 

[2] Kushnir, Vitaly A., Banafsheh Kashani, and Eli Y. Adashi. “Reproductive healthcare during a pandemic: a New York state of mind.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2020). Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.005. 

[3] Mhatre, Nikita. “Abortion Restrictions Hurt Women of Color.” National Partnership for Women and Families. April 25, 2019. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-impact/blog/general/abortion-restrictions-hurt-women-of-color.html.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.