“Inclusivity” and “intersectionality” are not just words. They describe the theory and practice of the reproductive justice movement with the potential to revitalize all of our advocacy and enable us to create the large and motivated base of support required to secure reproductive rights, health, and justice for all.
Both choice and reproductive justice have a place in our battle for women’s autonomy. But one cannot take the place of the other.
How can you afford to have children and access to decent medical care with a full range of birthing options when you are paid according to your race and gender rather than your contributions to society?
It’s time to put the old weapons away and start investing in the upcoming generation of pro-choice, reproductive justice leaders.
It seems that mainstream reproductive health and rights groups are realizing the limitations of reductive labels like “pro-choice.” And that’s a good thing.
A nationally-representative poll found that African Americans overwhelmingly support keeping abortion legal and believe that women in our community should have access to safe abortion care when they need it.
The two-day Take Root conference examined the tenets of reproductive justice: ensuring “the right to have a child, the right to not have a child, and the right to raise that child in a healthy, safe environment.”
A reproductive justice framework is critical—but it’s not the same thing as “pro-choice.”
Too often, “love” and “justice” are understood in completely different categories. In fact, they are just different incarnations of one another.
Reproductive justice can’t be easily communicated in a sound bite or phrase. Does it matter?
