This post was previously published on Craftivism by our member Saige.
Content Warning: this post contains mentions of rape, forced sterilization, eugenics, white supremacy, and chattel slavery.
Abortion has been around as long as pregnancy itself, with one of the earliest known recordings of abortion from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1600 BC. In the Dobbs ruling which overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Alito said in the majority opinion that “the Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of ‘ordered liberty.’ The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” This narrative is downright false, unless you ignore the brutal history of restricting access to bodily autonomy and the criminalization of abortion dating back to colonial times. Let’s go down the rabbit hole together.
Colonial & Early America
During the early days of America, the Colonies governed abortion according to English common law, which largely did not recognize a state interest in pregnancy or abortion until quickening (which can happen as late as the 25th week of pregnancy), the occurrence of which was left solely to the pregnant person to determine. Quickening is the point in pregnancy when the pregnant person can feel the fetus move around in their womb. The common law was largely employed to protect the interests of the woman, not the fetus.
As told in the book, When Abortion Was A Crime by Leslie J. Reagan, historians have since learned that colonial women viewed conception as a “disruption of the menses”, which required attention. Reagan wrote, “The cessation of the menses indicated a worrisome imbalance in the body and the need to bring the body back into balance by restoring the flow. This idea of menstruation corresponded with medical and popular understanding of sickness and health. The body was a delicate system of equilibrium that could easily be thrown out of balance — by a change in weather or diet, for example — and that then needed to be restored through active intervention. A disruption in the healthy body, in the worldview of patients and physicians, required a visible, often violent, physical response to treatment in order to restore equilibrium. This theory underlay eighteenth-and nineteenth-century regular medical practice, which emphasized heroic measures — bleeding, blistering, purging, and puking — in response to sickness. The response to the blocking of the menses was part of this shared understanding of the body: women took drugs in order to make their menses regular and regarded the ensuing vomiting and evacuation as evidence of the drugs’ effective action.”
It’s known that pregnant people during this era who wanted to restore their menses did so commonly by the use of herbal remedies, many of which were frequently advertised in local papers. As written in Reagan’s book, “One colonial woman who feared pregnancy had “twice taken Savin; once boyled in milk and the other time strayned through a Cloath.” Savin, derived from juniper bushes, was the most popular abortifacient and easily acquired since junipers grew wild throughout the country. Other herbs used as abortifacients included pennyroyal, tansy, ergot, and seneca snakeroot. Slave women used cottonroot. Many of these useful plants could be found in the woods or cultivated in gardens, and women could refer to home medical guides for recipes for ‘bringing on the menses.'” These are a few of the many examples of the attitudes in early America towards pregnancy and abortion — that it was the pregnant person’s realm and theirs to decide.
Well… sort of. Black women were denied the right to their bodily autonomy and their freedom, since their children were viewed as property by the slaveholder, they could be punished if the slaveholder thought they induced a miscarriage/abortion as that would lower the labor force for the plantation. In Angela Davis’ book Women, Race, and Class, she tells us, “[enslaved Black] Women suffered in different ways as well, for they were the victims of sexual abuse and other barbarous mistreatment that could only be inflicted on women. Expediency governed the slaveholders posture towards female slaves: when it was profitable to exploit them as if they were men, they were regarded, in effect, as genderless, but when they could be exploited, punished, and repressed in ways suited only for women, they were locked exclusively into their female roles”. The creation of the difference between biological sex verses gender was strictly created to subjugate Black women while simultaneously denying them of their womanhood. We still see the effects of this today by misogynoir and the hyper-masculinization of Black women.
Continuing in Davis’ book, “This did not mean, however, that as mothers, Black women enjoyed a more respected status than they enjoyed as workers. Ideological exhalation of motherhood – as popular as it was during the 19th century – did not extend to slaves. In fact in the eyes of the slaveholders, slave women were not mothers at all; they were simply instruments in guaranteeing the growth of the slave labor force. They were “breeders” – animals, whose monetary value could be precisely calculated in terms of their ability to multiply their numbers. Since slave women were classified as “breeders” as opposed to “mothers”, their infant children could be sold away form them like calves from cows.” This is important in debunking the anti-abortion talking point that either “slaves or slaveholders were “pro-life””. It’s also notable when you think about Justice Alito stating that there’s a “low domestic supply of infants” – the term ‘domestic supply’ is most often used when talking about livestock – as in the domesticated animals raised in an agricultural setting to provide labor and produce diversified products for consumption.
Despite this, many Black and Indigenous women had midwife skills and took control when they could of their reproductive health through their shared knowledge of herbal remedies to “restore the menses” and physical means when the herbal remedies weren’t effective. It is noted that slaveholders used these medical practitioners to ensure the health of their reproducing, enslaved women and their newborn infants to expand their labor force. It was also common for midwives to attend to the slave master’s wives during birth as well. This is a great article that talks more about the historical significance of midwives and doulas.
It wasn’t until 1821 when Connecticut enacted the nation’s first abortion restriction by “punishing any person who provided or took poison or ‘other noxious and destructive substance’ with the intent to cause ‘the miscarriage of any woman, then being quick with child’” due to a sex scandal between a preacher and his congregant. One important note: early abortion restrictions, such as this one from Connecticut, were often vague, difficult to enforce, and meant to protect the pregnant person from death, not the fetus.
Increasing Racial Tensions & the Formation of the American Medical Association
America was going through a lot during the 1840s and 1850s: an influx of European immigrants, the increasing racial tensions between Plantation owners and enslaved people, and elite Protestant white women who were the largest demographic seeking out abortions. All of this combined threatened (terrified) the Anglo-Saxon plantation-owning ruling class.
In 1847, the American Medical Association was established. This was an institute of only white men seeking to standardize healthcare practices, ethics guidelines and improve the outcomes of healthcare. Some people will ask the question “why does it matter that it was only white men? What does race and gender have to do with this?” The formation of the American Medical Association was a key factor in the banning of midwives and homeopaths (many of who were Black or Indigenous) and ultimately criminalizing abortion in all fifty states until the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade in 1973.
By being an all-white institution, this attracted men like Dr. Horatio Storer to the Association. The American Medical Association’s original policies did not mention abortion, but in 1856, Storer began pushing the group to explore what he called “criminal abortion.” He argued that abortion was immoral and caused “derangement” in women because it interfered with nature. Storer believed that “abortions were endangering what he saw as the ideal America: a society of white Protestants in which women adhered strictly to their proper ‘duties’ — marriage and childbearing.” He lobbied for the association to think of abortion not as a medical act, but a grave crime, one that lowered the profession as a whole. Storer equated abortion to infanticide and fought for what we now call “fetal personhood”.
Once he had the American Medical Association on board with this, just a decade later in 1857, he began the Physicians Campaign Against Abortion. The American Medical Association held their position against abortion until 1967. In this campaign, Storer campaigned on a moral argument that also tapped into the racial fears of the moment, fears that would eventually inspire a pseudo-scientific field of “racial improvement and planned breeding of the population” — known today as eugenics. It is important to note this is the first time in American history when abortion has a morality attached to it.
It’s good to note that his position on abortion did receive criticism. In the book, When Abortion Was A Crime, Reagan states, “some physicians argued that the issue of abortion was too nuanced for him to take such a forceful stand upon, one critic accused him of disregarding the lives and well-being of the pregnant women implicated in abortion, other critics were mainly concerned with Storer’s proposed changes to Massachusetts law which might have criminalized some of the activities they performed as physicians. However, in the end many medical societies and physicians around the country soon came to Storer’s defense and endorsed his positions.” As told by Reagan, “the antiabortion campaign was a reactionary response to two important efforts of the nineteenth-century women’s movements: the fight to admit women into the regular medical profession and the battle to make men conform to a single standard of sexual behavior. The antiabortion campaign coincided with the fight by male Regulars to keep women out of their medical schools, societies, and hospitals.” The term ‘Regulars’ is a dated historical term used to describe the white men who were entering the medical field.
As mentioned earlier, Elite Protestant white women were the largest demographic seeking out abortion. The birth rate for Protestant white women had been declining over the course of the 19th century, so Storer and the American Medical Association had fears of what was commonly referred to as “race-suicide”, that the Anglo-Saxon stock was not going to replenish itself fast enough to keep up with the swells of new immigrants coming to the United States — this is now known as the ‘great replacement theory’. He feared that the birth rates of recent immigrants, predominantly Catholic, would overwhelm the dominance of white Protestants in New England, for which he in part blamed married Protestant women for not producing enough children (does this sound familiar?). He equated marriage without a focus on fertility as “nothing less than legalized prostitution”. Storer pushed for the narrative to become that “white women needed to use their loins” because of the “Blackening and the browning” of the United States; Storer’s thinking was that criminalizing abortion would help re-balance the scales of who was being born into the United States. In order to help keep the white race dominant in the United States and lend legitimacy to the American Medical Association, Storer persuaded them to form the Committee on Criminal Abortion and promote sterilization of what they deemed to be “undesirable individuals” — a policy that lasted well into the 1970s and has been exposed to be done on incarcerated people and immigrants held in ICE detention centers.
As a Result of these Efforts…
As a result of Storer’s efforts, the AMA petitioned the state legislatures and territories to strengthen their laws against elective abortions. By 1880, most states and territories had enacted such legislation. In Reagan’s book, When Abortion Was A Crime, she stated “The antiabortion campaign points to the important role played by nongovernmental agencies in policing abortion. As voluntary medical societies and reform groups took up enforcing the criminal abortion laws, they essentially acted as part of the state. Indeed, official government agencies and the police relied upon private individuals and agencies to assist in enforcing the laws; in the abortion case, state officials expected the medical profession to act as a leader to repress the practice, particularly within the profession’s own ranks. Physicians who spoke vehemently against abortion represented the official view of medicine that the profession presented to the public, but, as we have seen, the public image projected by the leaders of medicine did not accurately represent the attitudes and actions of all physicians. Although many doctors participated in abortion in contradiction of their profession’s norms, few openly challenged the official attitude.” This reminds me of this article about abortion and snitch culture by Jessica Valenti (highly recommend subscribing to her substack for the latest details on abortion access).
Once abortion was officially outlawed in every state by 1910, most with exceptions for the life and health of the pregnant person, the anti-abortion movement allowed the state to carry out its interests.
During the 1900s, numerous states enacted eugenics programs and the forced sterilization of people deemed “undesirable” — disabled people, Black and Brown people, immigrants, criminals, and sex workers. By the 1970s, forced sterilization dramatically decreased, although, 31 states still have these laws on the books.
Targeting Abortion Via Mail
Similar to websites today providing abortion pills through mail, advertisements for abortion remedies were quite common in newspapers in the mid 1800s. In order to halt the mailing and advertising of abortion remedies, in 1873 the Comstock Act was signed into law. This legislation made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” publications through the mail. The law also made it a misdemeanor for anyone to sell, give away, or possess an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, drawing, or advertisement. This included writings or instruments pertaining to contraception and abortion, even if written by a physician.
It’s important to note that the Comstock Act was never actually repealed by Congress. Instead, it was overturned through a series of Supreme Court cases, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut. This technically means that this law is still on the books — it’s merely unenforceable thanks to the protections given by said Supreme Court cases, although right-wing actors will move to strike those cases down just as they did with Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Roe v Wade: Death By A Thousand Cuts
The women’s rights movement, along with the other social and political reforms, was picking up speed by the late 1960s. Many people, even those of faith, wanted abortion access to be legal. In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion, other states such as Hawaii, Alaska, New York, and Washington followed suit in 1970.
As mainstream Protestants and Reform Jews called for the liberalization of abortion laws, a group of clergy in New York City founded the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion (CCS), an international network of clergy that helped women obtain legal and illegal abortions from licensed medical professionals. This had over 2,000 members. Reverend Carl Bielby spoke with Michigan lawmakers who were conducting public hearings on the state’s abortion laws. Reverend Bielby was a leader of Michigan’s CCS. At the hearing, he represented the Michigan Council of Churches’ position that, “as a matter of human right, each woman be given the control of her own body and procreative function, and that she has the moral responsibility and obligation for the just and sober stewardship thereof.”
The Southern Baptist Convention even passed resolutions calling for abortion legalization in 1971. They reaffirmed the resolution in 1974 and again in 1976. Many Southern Baptists saw the Roe decision as drawing a needed line between church and state on matters of morality and state regulation. A Baptist Press article just days after the decision called it “an advancement of religious liberty, human equality and justice.”
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court announced their decision on Roe v. Wade. The ruling decided that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
While Roe greatly improved maternal health outcomes, maternal and infant mortality rates, and overall people’s quality of life, accessing abortion under Roe was still difficult for many — especially low-income people, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, and people living in rural communities.
This is especially true because over the next few decades, lawmakers implemented a variety of laws to limit access to abortion (and still are). These laws come in the form of prohibiting Medicaid and other insurance from covering abortion-related costs, having unnecessary and burdensome requirements for clinics and abortion providers (TRAP laws) in an attempt to close clinics, requiring abortion clinics to be within so many miles of a hospital despite abortion having a 99% safety record, parental consent for minors, mandated waiting periods for people seeking abortion, medically-inaccurate counseling designed to discourage people from abortion; essentially death [of abortion access and bodily autonomy] by a thousand cuts. Many of these barriers are meant to delay the limited amount of time a pregnant person has to legally obtain an abortion.
What Moved Evangelicals To Be Against Abortion? The Short Answer: Racism.
Imagine a modern day anti-abortion protester: you’re probably picturing a white, Evangelical Christian in front of an abortion clinic holding one of those graphic images.
As we’ve discussed so far, the average white, Evangelical Christian, have not always been the face of the anti-abortion movement. It was previously doctors with an agenda to retain the position (power) they had. When Roe passed, many Evangelicals were either happy or neutral as they viewed abortion as a Catholic issue. One poll in 1970 conducted by the Baptist Sunday School Board found that 70 percent of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, 64 percent supported abortion in cases of fetal deformity and 71 percent in cases of rape. Three years later, a poll conducted by the Baptist Standard news-journal found that 90 percent of Texas Baptists believed their state’s abortion laws were too restrictive.
So what happened?
In 1953, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Brown v. Board of Education, declaring the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine unconstitutional. Despite this ruling, many states, especially Southern states, took their time integrating schools (because they didn’t want their white children going to school with Black children) and other public spaces.
Nearly a decade later in 1962, SCOTUS ruled on Engel v. Vitale, the case that decided it was against our First Amendment rights to hold an official prayer in public schools.
By 1971, Bob Jones University refused to integrate its school. As a result of this refusal in 1976, the IRS rescinded Bob Jones University’s tax-exempt status. The university also prohibited interracial dating, a policy they maintained until 2000.
These actions outraged Evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, and Francis Schaeffer. Instead of mobilizing in defense of segregation — which Evangelical leaders knew was a losing cause — they decided to rile up their base using abortion and decried government intrusion into their affairs as an assault on religious freedom, thereby writing a page for the modern Republican Party playbook.
In 1979, Francis Schaeffer, Jerry Falwell, and Paul Weyrich — the founder of the conservative-think-tank The Heritage Foundation — teamed up and founded the “Moral Majority” to promote conservative social causes — i.e. the prohibition of abortion in all cases, traditional family values, anti-LGBTQ, anti-ERA, converting Jewish people and non-Christians to Christianity, prayer in public schools. This was in direct response to all the progress of the civil rights movement as they saw it as an attack on their way of life — which parallels how the white plantation-owners were terrified and felt threatened by newly emancipated Black people, and non-Protestant, non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants entering America.
They began giving sermons to mobilize the masses of white, conservative, Evangelical Christians (especially across the South, although their work extended well beyond the South). In these sermons, they tapped into a sense of “moral decay” which resonated with many and used violent rhetoric in their sermons that emboldened anti-abortionists to justify the violence committed against clinics and abortion providers.
Francis Schaeffer stated in one of these rhetorically violent sermons, “The answer is clear — the consensus of our society no longer rests upon a Christian basis, but upon a humanistic one. Humanism is man putting himself at the center of all things rather than the Creator, God.” He then argued that the result was “a society that had lost its moral foundation and threatened to shipwreck itself on the shoals of western civilization”. He told his many followers, “There does come a time when force, even physical force is appropriate.” This was a key moment in getting white Evangelicals both politically motivated and against abortion.
Post-Roe America
When Roe was overturned the vast majority of the country was outraged. However, the loud-mouth minority rejoiced. Many of the leading anti-abortion organizations, politicians, and churches, released statements of “celebration” on how the fall of Roe is a “victory for life” (then they immediately stuck their head in the sand to ignore all the consequences of Roe being overturned).
One congresswoman, Mary Miller (R)-IL, had a Freudian slip and called the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade a “historic victory for white life” at a campaign rally with former President Donald Trump. Her campaign later said that she “misspoke”. Keep in mind, this is the same politician who apologized shortly after she took office for quoting Hitler.
Far-right, white nationalist organizations such as the Proud Boys have been known to attend the March For Life rallies with no condemnation from the March For Life organization.
The Proud Boys, and other white Christian-nationalist organizations alike, believe that “illegal aliens” (i.e. Black, Brown, and non-Christian immigrants) are making white people the minority in America, that they are taking our job opportunities, and are ultimately harming our families. Therefore, they feel they must act to protect the sanctity of white life by any means necessary. Due to the interconnected history of the anti-abortion movement to the Great Replacement theory, white supremacists are attracted to the anti-abortion movement the way a moth is to a flame.
It’s also worth mentioning that members of white Christian-nationalist organizations also hold positions of power — law enforcement, elected/appointed positions, etc. North Carolina Representative Keith Kidwell has known ties to the Oath Keepers and former North Carolina Representative Larry Pittman has stated in the past that “people who provide abortions should be publicly hanged.”
Needless To Say…
A real pro-life movement is one that fights for livable wages, paid parental leave, universal childcare and education, healthcare for all, addresses poverty without criminalizing the poor in the process. It doesn’t hold paternalistic views about what’s best for other people. It’s one that realistically meets people where they’re at. It’s one that fights to end systemic racism and white supremacy culture and the multitude of ways they’re embedded in our society. It’s one that encourages people to be who they truly are and embraces cultural differences instead of forcing them to assimilate into the status quo to benefit a small portion of the population at the expense of others. A real pro-life movement is one that works to make the quality of life better for everyone, including pregnant people, transgender people, Black people and People of Color, disabled people, the incarcerated, the homeless, and so on. It’s one that works to educate our communities for the empowerment of everyone via mutual aid services, age-appropriate sexual education, harm reduction education, and meeting people where they’re at instead of shaming and guilt-tripping people for being human. It’s one that has compassion and empathy for people of different backgrounds instead of ridicule and animosity.
This is the reason it’s been referred to as the anti-abortion movement instead of the “pro-life” movement. This movement doesn’t advocate for making our material conditions better. They advocate for policy that directly causes the trauma and suffering of pregnant people and their loved ones while simultaneously increasing both the maternal and infant mortality rates, policy that criminalizes doctors and pregnant people, policy that disproportionately harms marginalized and vulnerable communities. They have a strict anti-abortion agenda rooted in, adjacent to, and working in tandem with the white supremacist agenda today.
The anti-abortion movement is not about protecting life. It never was. It was always about upholding white supremacy and enforcing rigid gender roles. It is about putting women and people capable of getting pregnant back in their place — motherhood and free domestic labor. It is about putting queer people back in the closet.