In recent arguments relating to the Mississippi anti-abortion law, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett demonstrated her elitist and racist beliefs and perspectives. She may even have done so unwittingly, as a result of implicit bias, which could be even more dangerous. Barrett questioned whether adoption laws could “ease the burden” of parenthood and justify overturning Roe v. Wade. Roe has preserved for women a reasonable control over their bodies and reproduction for almost a half century. Her arguments are not compelling enough to overturn decades of stare decisis, though such rulings can be appropriate where the basis lies in facts, experience, social justice and rationality as in the case of Brown v. Bd of Education. [Not based upon politicized whims and payoffs by Justices for political support that enabled them access to the Bench] The rationale of Barrett's argument, however, is not fact based, is inhumane, and is immoral on many levels.
One need not turn immediately to subjective analysis. Go first to objective evidence of the demographic profile of women who will be most affected by a ban on abortion vs a demographic profile of adoptive parents. The former are women who lack the economic and social resources to travel to another state and secure a safe abortion. These are the women who historically and very predictably will turn to what OB/GYN professionals euphemistically call “alternative” and “self-managed” pregnancy terminations. [Picture in your mind the coat hanger or back-room abortionist scenarios] Their “option” under the abortion ban laws would be to carry the pregnancy to term, often without adequate medical care and support, and then give the resulting child up for adoption. Objective studies show that 61% of abortion patients are non-white, and 75% are in poverty or low income. [Guttmacher Institute] About 59% of women seeking abortion already had other children [which would complicate giving child up for adoption]. About 60% of abortion patients are women in their 20’s. The NIH reports that, although abortion rates have decreased, the group with the highest rate are women below the poverty level. There are other statistical details to report, but the profile is evident.
As for adoptive parents, the US Census tells us that 92% of adoptive parents are white. The large majority of those adoptive parents are from middle class or higher economic status. Many of those are international adoptions, which directly undercuts Barrett’s notion that adoption could mitigate the problem of forcing birth of children in the US who are unwanted or for whom the parent could not provide economic support. In contrast, adoptive parents of color are more likely to adopt from foster care, but only about 35% of adoptees of color from foster care wind up in households of color.
In her questioning, Barrett appears to harken back to the Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” mentality. She suggested that: “pregnancy, and parenthood by extension, is no longer burdensome because of many economic and social developments that make pregnancy safer and parenting easier.” That may have some practical validity only as to safety and only for women with substantial economic means [putting aside that the psychological and emotional aspects of parenting are never “easy,” unless you can afford, like Barrett, to hire a nanny.] The reality in which most of us live clearly reflects that those “economic and social developments” to which she apparently refers are not equitably distributed or available, especially to women who are poor and of color. The "remedy" she postulates is unavailable to most of the women who would be harmed by her proposed decision. Barrett appears oblivious to that ironic distinction. Or if she is aware, her argument is cruel and malicious.
Let us turn to credibility of Barrett to speak to the subject. She has adopted children. However, Barrett has never been in a position to be forced to address the question of abortion due to economic or lack of family support. Indeed, as a “mother” it is a fair question whether Barrett can speak credibly to the “burdens of parenthood” felt by women in poverty. [Obviously, she has no idea what the circumstances and pressures of a poor woman of color might be like.] Speaking to the “burdens” however, Barrett has had economic circumstances that allowed her to acquire and provide childcare services [nanny services] which women of color seeking abortion do not have. Nor is it available to women who believe that they cannot sustain an additional child in an already struggling family. In that regard, Barrett’s argument could come across as condescending, elitist and racist. She has no credible basis for voicing the concerns about what the experience of most women who will be affected by the demise of Roe v. Wade or what can be done FOR them. She only has the voice of those who are concerned about what will be done TO women who are in circumstances where they believe abortion is traumatic, but the appropriate decision regarding their own bodies and reproductive rights.
In historic institutions of slavery, women of color were forced to bear children, and those children [if allowed to live] were taken away as a commodity by white slave owners. Rather than “adoption,” they were often sold off as chattel to a very uncertain future. In the history of Indigenous peoples, children were forcibly taken away by whites from their families and sent to boarding institutions designed and determined to extinguish their culture and languages. Sadly, the current push to ban abortion services has too many parallels. Not unlike the slave owners and Indian Boarding School authorities, elitist whites have decided to exert power to control women’s bodies and compel childbirth without regard to safety of the wellbeing of the children. This is about control, not about parenting or even preservation of life.
Since the high percentage of adoptive parents are white adoption of white, one might expect that white babies from the US would be adopted at a high rate, if Barrett’s argument were rational, even if racist. But the percentage of international adoptions indicates either a racial selectivity or that US adoption laws are inadequate to the purpose Barrett suggests. Arguments presented to the SCOTUS highlighted that adoption has been available throughout the period Roe has been in place and has not had the impact Barrett suggests. Either way, Barrett’s argument does not stand up to critical scrutiny. So, the objective reality is that more affluent white adoptive parents with resources seek to force childbearing to produce a pool of babies from which they can select only those they deem valuable. Only a fraction of those of color in the US have been deemed by these abortion ban advocates worth adopting. Note that even public figures like Angelina Jolie who chose adoption of children of color sought children from another country. Again, this is about patriarchy, control, and racism, not about "right to life."
It is very unfortunate that Barrett sits on the Bench of SCOTUS with a voice and position of authority, voicing pretentious empathy for the women and children who will be not just “burdened” but seriously harmed by her elitist, paternalistic and racist beliefs. The hypocrisy is amplified in that Barrett does not seem to have a record of speaking out, advocating, or DOING anything about the plight of children in foster care and the fractured adoption system upon which she would seek to shift unsustainable burdens even in the best possible scenario resulting from overturning Roe v. Wade. It is shameful and not worthy of a nation that espouses Constitutional rights and social justice. Barrett's argument, and its lack of rational grounding, reeks of politically infused payback to her GOP supporters rather than independent jurisprudence. But, as the saying goes, here we are!
