Thoughts on gradualism …
Because a right delayed is a right denied.
Gradualism is useful in that its failure to produce progress makes the case for strategic and decisive action.
Shall we?
I’ve been involved in a lot of interesting discussions about strategy since the Dobbs ruling gutted abortion access in the U.S. The two main proposals that have emerged are gradualism versus courageous action.
One camp believes that activists should take what we can get (maxing out at access between 18 and 24 weeks) and then gradually build support for abortion access for those left behind (youth and people needing care later in pregnancy). The Gradualists point to those who are currently suffering and call for a grand compromise on abortion in the name of harm mitigation. That’s why some of y’all may have noticed abortion rights activists championing state policy proposals that the movement spent 49 years trying to defeat.
The other camp believes that now is the time to demand what the masses actually need – abortion access liberated from the tyranny of partisan politics and the legislative process. Supporters point to the fact that abortion has won every single time it has been on the ballot, not because of wonkified restrictive language but because people support abortion access and think that’s what they are voting for. I mean, c’mon people! They called the Ohio ballot initiative win before Boomer Bedtime (9pm EST) on election day and abortion access won by double digits (13%).
My people call that decisive.
***pause … refresh coffee … proceed***
The movement for reproductive health and rights is in desperate need of a strategy.
Gradualism ain’t it.
Gradualism is a favorite tool of the American bourgeoisie because it allows for their immediate satisfaction, and then gets marginalized groups to blame conservatives for lack of progress rather than the people who got their rights and now give zero fucks.
Gradualism also assumes folk aren’t selfish entitled assholes who will celebrate winning back abortion access and then turn around and list off a million reasons why they aren’t comfortable with marginalized folk having the same rights.
Gradualism had Black men getting the constitutional right to vote in 1870, with women then having to organize and risk their lives to get that right in 1918. Sadly, white suffragettes used the false promise of gradualism to justify screwing Black women in the South out of the protected vote until 1965. Again, there was nothing gradual about the violent devastation required to simply access the ballot.
Gradualism is a holding pattern for the haves and have nots. It guarantees extended suffering for marginalized people while simply delaying the strategic action required to center those most impacted by oppression and actually organize for reproductive justice.
You may be wondering why an activist or organization would latch onto gradualism.
If you’re not marginalized, it looks easier to cater to the needs of the majority without the messy messaging associated with those most impacted by reproductive oppression.
The people who fund these multimillion-dollar statewide initiatives want certain victory at the polls and they see people at the margins as a small percent of the population that will simply have to be collateral damage.
Or maybe Gradualists just haven’t built a strategy beyond election day and thus can’t see that you can lose by winning.
Anyhoo …
If you’re wondering where all the compromises on reproductive rights are sourced, look no further than gradualism. And gradualism in social justice work is only useful in that it’s inevitable failure drives activists to strategic and decisive action.
As a reproductive justice activist, my hope is to avoid all the suffering and time lost associated with that equation because a right delayed is a right denied. We have a historic opportunity to build back better than Roe, to shuck off the legal framework that allowed for all the restrictions and dehumanizing barriers to abortion care.
We could be using an intersectional analysis to build strategy that will result in inclusive policy wins. We could unite and demand that those with money fund that strategy. We could actually leave future generations a better reproductive rights landscape instead of complicating things through restrictive language that the opposition will weaponize … again.
We could even give the reproductive justice framework a chance and make “reproductive freedom” a reality rather than an empty slogan that tested well among white women aged 25 to 54.
Blink.
Sigh.