The women's rights movement, population, and the environment

Socialist Action, Vol. 8, No. 7, July 1990 · scan pp. 8–10 · Carole Seligman · about 3,339 words

Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 8 →

Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.

Scan page 8

Pro-choice union officers are actively lobbying the AFL-CIO as this letter (above) 1 California labor councils shows. Citing the support of the union movement for civil ! support for women's reproductive rights, these Bay Area labor council leaders also Bay Area working people, including unionists, are pro-choice. This has been reflect the massive turn-out for two local pro-choice demonstrations in San Francisca-30, on Oct. 15, 1989—both of which were local building actions in support of the nation:

.. Mass action needed 8 SOCIALIST ACTION JULY 1990 At the last National Organization for Women's national conference, NOW President Molly Yard introduced the argument that over-population is responsible for the destruction of the earth's environment. She sought to link feminists with the environmental movement, claiming that the moral arguments in favor of birth control and abortion rights dovetailed with the imperative of stemming the world's population growth.

Efforts to link the women's movement to the environmental movement are laudable. But population-control policies are not the solution for the problem of the destruction of the environment. Nor are they compatible with a campaign to protect and extend reproductive rights.

Since the advent of the second wave of feminism in the United States, which gathered momentum at the end of the 1960s, the struggle for the right to birth control and abortion has been firmly grounded in the democratic struggle for women to gain control of their own bodies.

Previous struggles for legalization of birth control methods and abortion had not been firmly connected with women's rights. Some advocates (including Margaret Sanger, the great birth-control pioneer) linked their advocacy of birth control to the need to limit population or as a solution to poverty among the working classes.

The feminist movement's adoption of the struggle for abortion and birth control as part and parcel of women's struggle for full human rights was in sharp contrast to the population-control advocates, who supported abortion and birth control only as an adjunct to their "higher" goal of limiting world population.

The fact that the feminist movement and the population-control advocates were on different sides of the fundamental issues was made clear when the feminist movement linked up with oppressed nationalities who were demanding an end to sterilization abuse suffered particularly by Puerto Rican, Native American, and African-American women.

For healthy children too!

The support of the feminist movement for pre-natal care and childcare, and against high infant mortality, also underscores the difference between those who support abortion and birth control as part of women's rights as a whole and those whose outlook is shaped by the view that the world is overpopulated.

The women's movement is just as much in favor of women's rights to give birth to healthy, well-cared-for children as we are for women's rights not to give birth.

The danger, of course, in separating these issues from a women's right to choose for themselves is that women become instruments of either pro-natalist or anti-natalist state policy. They are forced to bear children against their will (as in Romania and many other countries in recent years) or to limit (continued from page 1: “Mass action needed to defend abortion rights”)) refusal to speak out for or aid the pro-choice cause in any way, and her poor record on appointing women to city posts.

But more important than the quality of the candidates themselves is the nature of the political parties whose banners they carry. The Democratic and Republican parties are enemies of women's rights, and no amount of lip-service to the contrary can change this.

These two parties are the political representatives of the ruling rich in this country—the corporate rulers who profit from women's second-class status in this society.

No matter which party controls Congress, women have been denied even legal equality (the ERA)-not to mention guaranteed births will India).

The other danger is that population-control measures are used against poor and Third World peoples whose lack of wealth is confused with overpopulation. The enthusiasm in advanced industrial countries for population-control measures in Third World countries has been correctly branded as racist by the peoples of those countries.

What's the cause of pollution?

In the underdeveloped world, according to a recent United Nations report, 14 million children under the age of 5 die each year from diseases associated with environmental pollution. The environmental crisis has placed the very future of the human race, not to mention that of all other species, in question.

But in order to save the environment, we have to know how and why it is being destroyed. By focusing on population control, Molly Yard and others in the mainstream 'Molly Yard argued that global warming, air and environmental movement are placing the blame for the disaster at the wrong door.

We live in a society where chemicals, oil, and nuclear waste are routinely dumped in waterways, soil, and air. Molly Yard argued that global warming, air and water pollution, and the destruction of the oxygen-producing rain forests were a product of over-population. But this is not true. The United States, with a relatively low birthrate, accounts for barely one-twentieth of the world's population. Yet this country uses 50 percent of the earth's energy and produces a major part of its pollution.

Almost three-fourths of airborne toxics in this country are produced by big industrial enterprises. Factory farms are responsible for most of the 375,000 tons of pesticides that wash into our streams annually. The large timber corporations are engaged in a mad rush to reap the last of the old-growth forests.

The owners of the corporations responsible for this wanton destruction lobby the representatives they themselves put in government in order to water down any attempt at environmental legislation. Why? Because their profits suffer if they are forced to clean up their mess.

The cause of pollution is not that women have too many babies. The cause is our social system-capitalism—which uses technology for the purpose of amassing private profit no matter what the effect.

(It should be pointed out that the bureaurights over our own bodies, childcare, housing, and freedom from every kind of institutionalized sexism. Our only hope of redressing these grievances is organizing action for our majority demands independent of the Democrats and Republicans.

The women's rights movement must focus on mobilizing pro-choice sentiment into a mass movement through national and local protest actions; speak-outs; and outreach to unions, youth, and oppressed minorities.

Recover lost ground

By not mobilizing a national demonstration in 1990, the movement has, in fact, lost some ground. Local NOW chapters that were a hotbed of activity just eight months cracies who usurped power in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have aped the capitalists of the West and even surpassed them in their wanton disregard for the environment and human health.)

Control by working people But there is no reason to believe that techKathleen O'Nan/Socialist Action D.C. on April 9, and Nov. 12, that year.

ago, with thousands of newly activated members, are experiencing a decline in activity.

The option of switching gears from militant, independent mass action to politicking for the Democrats is very unappetizing for many activists, who are fully aware of the dismal record of the capitalist political parties on women's rights.

The only victories the women's movement has ever won, historically speaking, were through independent mass action. Those victories include ending child labor, the vote, the eight-hour day, and unionization.

The best current example of how change can come about is the recent upheaval in Romania that brought down the Stalinist government of Nicolae Ceausescu. The Romanian anti-abortion laws, perhaps the worst in the world, fell because of these nology cannot be brought under the control of the majority of the people of the world— working people-whose interests require safeguarding the environment. Technology can be used to clean and protect the environment, while ensuring a higher standard of living for all.

History has shown that birth rates tend to fall as educational, social, and employment opportunities for women (as well as for men) increase. But the underdeveloped and neocolonial nations will not achieve the living standards of the United States and Western Europe without a revolution to replace the system that keeps them under the domination of the advanced capitalist countries.

CENTRAL OF EA' SAN FRANC ER June 1, 1 Lane Kirkland AFL-CIO 815 16th St., N.H.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Brother Kirkland:

We are in receipt of a copy of Brother Irvin Fletcher, President of the AFL-CIO Executive Council's revi reproductive choice.

While we appreciate the process submitted to the convention, we bel you our local labor councils have support of protecting the right o choices free from any governmental !

We are confident an objective AFL-CIO would clearly reveal that thi the forefront of Civil Rights bat' position in favor of reproductive reflect the views of a wide cros members, but working people in gene:

He respectfully request you te Committee on Reproductive Issues pri issue by the Executive Council.

wen A. tarion Owen A. Marron, Exec. Secty Alameda Labor Council Seen Tobit steven A. Roberti, Exec. Secty Prui Contra Costa Labor Council Preston I. Epperson, President Naba-Solano Labor Council Napa-Se mass mobilizations for democratic rights.

What a rich lesson for us in the United States!

The fact that we already have won our rights to freedom of speech and assembly only makes it more possible to use these rights to mobilize our movement. What a deadly mistake it would be to retreat from the task of organizing independent actions in order to throw support to Democratic Party politicians who, once they are safely in office, will join with the enemies of women's rights and stab us in the back.

Scan page 9

We are in receipt of a copy of your April 26, 1990 letter to Brother Irvin Fletcher, President of the Oregon AFL-CIO, regarding the AFL-CIO Executive Council's review of resolutions relating to While we appreciate the process for review of the resolutions submitted to the convention, we believe it appropriate to inform you our local labor councils have already taken positions in suoices bree foom thy gther mental intererete make reproductive We are confident an objective revien of the history of the AFL-CIO would Clearly reveal that the federation has always been in the forefront of Civil Rights battles. We strongly believe a position in favor of reproductive rights by the AFL-CIO will reflect the views of a wide cross section of not only union members, but working people in general. in our area.

respectfully request you to present our position to Committee on Reproductive Issues prior to the consideration of the Pro-choice union officers are actively lobbying the AFL-CIO as this letter (above) from the heads of six Northern California labor councils shows. Citing the support of the union movement for civil rights as the precedent for their support for women's reproductive rights, these Bay Area labor council leaders also cite the fact that the majority of Bay Area working people, including unionists, are pro-choice. This has been reflected not only in polls but also in the massive turn-out for two local pro-choice demonstrations in San Francisco -30,000 on April 2, 1989, and 60,000 on Oct. 15, 1989 both of which were local building actions in support of the national mobilizations in Washington, (as China • population-control ist poor and Third k of wealth is conin. The enthusiasm untries for populaThird World counranded as racist by tries.

: of pollution? vorld, according to a report, 14 million 5 die each year from environmental polal crisis has placed luman race, not to I species, in quesle environment, we why it is being depopulation control, in the mainstream int are placing the he wrong door. here chemicals, oil, outinely dumped in Molly Yard argued and water pollution, e oxygen-producing luct of over-popula• The United States, thrate, accounts for the world's populaes 50 percent of the ices a major part of if airborne toxics in ed by big industrial s are responsible for is of pesticides that annually. The large : engaged in a mad of the old-growth rporations responsistruction lobby the mselves put in govir down any attempt tion. Why? Because y are forced to clean 1 is not that women The cause is our so-which uses techof amassing private : effect. out that the bureauded lies, childcare, housevery kind of instituonly hope of redressorganizing action for independent of the 'ans. lovement must focus ce sentiment into a h national and local uts; and outreach to essed minorities.

ist ground national demonstra'ement has, in fact, I NOW chapters that ty just eight months cracies who usurped power in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe have aped the capitalists of the West and even surpassed them in their wanton disregard for the environment and human health.)

Control by working people But there is no reason to believe that techKathleen O'Nan/Socialist Action D.C. on April 9, and Nov. 12, that year.

ago, with thousands of newly activated members, are experiencing a decline in activity.

GREATER SAN Lane Kirkland, President AFL-CIO 815 16th St., Washington, D • C. 20006 Dear Brother Kirkland:

reproductive choice. issue by the Executive Council.

Owen A. Marron, Exec. Secty.

Alameda Labor Council

Steven ¡teven A. Roberti, Exec.Secty Contra Costa Labor Council Prestor I. Epperson, Presiden Napa-Solano Labor Council mass mobilizations for democratic rights. What a rich lesson for us in the United States!

This is exactly what happened to the Equal Rights Amendment. The movement stopped the demonstrations and agreed to support those candidates for state legislatures who promised to vote for ratification. When they got in office-with the help, money, and precinct-walking of the women's movementthey turned around and voted against Wherever efforts at population control have been introduced—whether by means of "material incentives" or outright sterilization-they have been an infringement upon women's civil liberties and their rights to have control over their own bodies. Such goverment population-control policies portray women as criminals for having "too many children." In reality, they are the victims of an antiquated social system that is unwilling and unable to spread the bounties of the earth to the entire population.

NOW members cannot let themselves be fooled by the population-control advocates. The feminist movement must stay firmly centered on the struggle for a woman's right to choose.

CENTRAL LABOR COUNCII OF THE FRANCISCO June 1, 1990 upstarbolt Wayne Warbolt. Exec. Director Sacramento Labor Council 'Valter fOohnson Walter Johnson Secty.

San Francisco Labor Council little Pasks Art Pulaski, Exec. Secty..

San Mateo Labor Council landfa Richard F. Sawyer, Bus. Iar.

Santa Clara-San Benito Council women. The NOW leadership should not repeat the failed strategy of the ERA campaign.

The moral authority of NOW is tremendous because of its tireless advocacy of women's fundamental rights and because of its leadership in calling the giant mobilizations of 1989. What we need right now is another mass national mobilization for women's equality and women's lives.

Through the previous mobilizations NOW was able to educate an entire generation about the importance of legal, safe, accessible abortion. This is a life and death issueif abortion is made illegal or inaccessible, women will die. This knowledge, and a willingness of hundreds of thousands to act on it, makes it logical and imperative for NOW to use its well-earned authority to mobilize again. the against n Women across English Canada and Quet took to the streets as soon as the House Commons announced its intention to bef debate on the new abortion law proposed Conservative Prime Minister Bri Mulroney.

Considering the short notice, the turn-r for the emergency protests on 1 May 2s, v significant. In addition to demonstrations Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, Kingste Montreal, Ottawa, Saskatoon, Saint Johr Toronto, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, actic were held in such small towns as Antigr ish, Colburg, Port Elgin, and Port Perry.

At its convention in May, the Canadi Labour Congress overwhelmingly went record in support of abortion rights. O1 two of the approximately 2000 delega voted against this pro-choice resolution.

This support was visibly demonstrated labor speakers at many of the May 25 rall demanded that the proposed new law be feated. These speakers compared the curri struggle of women for reproductive rights the labor struggles of the '30s.

During the week's debate preceding 1 House vote, all amendments to the propos law were rejected. On May 29, wom packed the House galleries to show their ‹ position to the pending legislation. I Canadian Auto Workers Union underwr half the cost of a bus from Toronto.

Women forcibly ejected When women expressed their outrage the House passed the bill by nine votes, curity guards forcibly ejected them from galleries. Several women were injured, cluding one who required hospitalization.

Before leaving Parliament Hill, pro-cho supporters rallied outside and pledged to c tinue the fight for safe, legal abortion. Ne broadcasts reported the "bill passed Par ment amid an uproar with women's gro vowing to fight back."

Several supposedly pro-choice Libr members of Parliament were convenier absent the day of the vote.

The bill is now before the Canad Senate which can either pass or reject it send it back to the House for further cons eration. Pro-choice supporters are demand that the Tories drop the bill, allowing it die in the Senate. (The Tories took t course a year ago after child-care legislat passed the House.)

If, as is likely, the Tories continue press for passage of the new abortion I pro-choice supporters will demand that Senate defeat this legislation. The Canac Abortion Rights Action League has cal

Scan page 10

Wherever efforts at population control march

----- pull-quotes -----

water pollution, etc., were a product of over-population. But this is not true?

ABORTION EGAI FROM HANGERS

ats movement, re environment

irgued that ng, air and n, etc., were ict of on. But this rue.'

ABORTION GA FROM HANGERS

JORTION KE EGAV ABOR ABORTABOR 10.