The idea that low-income women should be prevented from
having children was first explicitly proposed to me last summer. The owner of
the idea suggested fining violators—but why stop there? Wouldn’t prison and
forced sterilization be options, too?
Shock prevented me from pointing out
the obvious: If low-income women were barred from having children, you wouldn’t be
having this conversation with me.
My father was born to my fantastic grandmother in the mid-1950s.
In addition to being a wonderful person and strong mother, my grandmother also
happened to be a young, low-income woman living in the projects on the
outskirts of Boston. In part due to government assistance, my father and his
siblings were given the chance to grow into healthy and successful people
despite a multitude of compounding factors related to poverty and social struggles.
My father excelled in school, and now has a successful and meaningful career as
an author and professor.
My goal is to make a difference in medicine and global health
through research, policy reform, and social entrepreneurship. I hope that my
path allows me to serve as an advocate for my relatives who have helped shape
my hopeful perception of the world — because more people than ever face the same
adversity today.
Is there social capital in providing safe and sanitary
housing, nutritious food, and first-rate educations? Yes, and it exponentially
pays forward for generations. My brother was just accepted to every college he
applied to, and my cousin served as the Western states campaign manager for
President Obama’s 2008 run for office and is now the director of field
operations for a major company. We,
along with thousands of others with stories similar to ours, wouldn’t be here if
our grandmothers been told that they weren’t worthy of raising children, or if
their children had been considered undeserving of basic human rights.
The history of poverty and oppression in the United States is
central to the claim that monetary wealth determines an individual’s parenting
aptitude, and it must be loudly acknowledged that dictating parenthood by
income level is discriminatory. The notion that low-income women should not be
permitted to have children is classist, often racist, and reminiscent of the
recent era when eugenicists reigned as the kings of science and policy.
On March 16th, President Trump unveiled his proposed budget
for 2018. Among the most sinister of the proposed cuts were those reducing
funding for nutrition and family planning services. It is both unrealistic and
inhumane to expect women not to have children due to their financial
circumstances. Pregnancy and parenting are primal human experiences, and a
right that all should have without question. Treating a class of women as unworthy
of children deprives them of a basic human need and purpose, and deprives the
world of infants who have the potential to grow into wonderful people.
Conversely, it is authoritative and unacceptable to corner a woman into having
a child she either feels she cannot raise or does not want. The proposed budget
changes infringe upon the rights of all women, but especially low-income women
who have very few other options. These cuts are a direct attack on those living
in poverty, and do nothing but set the stage for the downward spiral of
marginalized communities at the hands of a government proffering systemic
oppression as it withholds basic human rights.
Ironically, the idea that low-income women are not deserving
of motherhood and that babies born into poverty are not deserving of healthy
development and humane treatment was first shared with me just minutes after
starting my walk home from my internship under a physician studying long-term neonatal
neurodevelopment. Nutrition, stimulation,
emotional support, and attention are essential to the healthy development of young brains,
and the role of nutrition in neurocognitive development is corroborated by
several studies. Researchers suggest focusing on overall diet quality to
provide children with solid foundation for brain development. Historically, the
United States government has aimed to ease a small portion of the pressure on
low-income parents by providing food packages, lactation support, and several
other services through the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC). Through
WIC, families with children ages 5 and under are able to buy food products with
high nutritional value— such as vegetables, fruit, milk, tofu, cheese, peanut
butter, yogurt, and eggs— that may have been previously unavailable to them due
to financial circumstances. The intent of the program is to lower infant and
maternal mortality and to provide families with more capacity to focus on the
other areas critical to development noted above. While I am nowhere near
motherhood, it easy to imagine how it is both an exciting and challenging
transition, and how any previous difficulties can be intensified as a result of
new emotional and financial stressors. If parents are less worried about
earning enough to provide the next meal, they will be a capable of creating a
lower-stress home for their child. In an article published by The Atlantic last week, experts discuss how high stress as a result
of poverty can reduce problem solving skills and the ability to set goals and
complete tasks efficiently. WIC helps mitigate these effects by working to
combat common sources of stress for low-income families. While WIC alone cannot
come close to solving all poverty-related challenges affecting young families,
it is an integral part of supporting a positive environment change for one out of two babies born in the United States.
The Trump administration has proposed a $200 million cut, which
is not likely significant enough to threaten WIC’s current caseload. However,
WIC is currently unable to support eligible families in the United States, and
in 2013 was only able to provide for 83% of children and
families in need.
Any budget cuts will further hinder the abilities of the program, essentially
robbing mothers and children in the name of unnecessarily increased defense
spending. While it should go without saying, if we aren’t caring for our children and nurturing strong families, we
have nothing left to protect.
Here in New Hampshire, a bill currently making its way through the
legislature—
SB7—would
raise the eligibility threshold for the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, ending the benefit for 17,000 NH
families—the vast majority of whom are working poor people. The White House
Council of Economic Advisors published a report in 2015 citing research findings
indicating that children who benefit from SNAP “…see improvements in health and
academic performance and that these benefits are mirrored by long-run
improvements in health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency.”
Along with significant cuts to nutritional support for
mothers and children, the Trump administration has proposed reducing funding
for reproductive health services and taken legislative action to inhibit the
abilities of healthcare providers to offer treatments and services that enable
women to make informed choices regarding their lives. Opposed by only two
Republicans, this new law is a reversal of President Obama’s January 18th
rule and will prohibit Title X funding
allocation for clinics offering abortions. This decision will not only limit
access to contraceptives for low-income residents of conservative states, but
will also impede on the affected clinics’ ability to provide other life-saving
services, such as cancer
screenings and well-woman exams.
Trump’s policies
undermine the individual woman, her family, and society. The proposed system is
unethical on many levels — it is unacceptable to police a woman’s human right
to have children on the basis of her financial means, and it is unacceptable to
force a woman to carry and raise a child that she doesn’t want by limiting her
access to reproductive health rights. This is irresponsible and short-sighted,
and leaves poverty-affected women in an overwhelming position of amplified
insecurity and reduced autonomy. Most importantly, it is cruel to withhold
vital nutrition from children in all situations.
Politics aside, children should be our top priority. Their
safety, growth, and happiness is paramount. The Trump administration’s proposed budget and legislative action limit
reproductive choices and simultaneously lack empathy and rationality,
suggesting that classism and racism are at the heart of it. The long-term
individual and social benefits of WIC, SNAP, and pre- and post-natal care are
all well documented. Only Trump’s alternative facts say otherwise.
