An OB-GYN in Columbus, Ohio has a policy banning patients from wearing bonnets.
Considering the vast majority of women who wear bonnets are Black women, this bonnet ban is the sort of microaggressive racism that Black women face every day. It’s discriminatory.
A bonnet ban is an extension of the hair discrimination that Black women face regularly. Black women wear bonnets in order to protect our hair—rain and frizz, for example, can be the kiss of death for some Black women, especially those with chemically straightened hair.
I’ve written about how seemingly race neutral policies regarding hair styles can negatively impact Black people and reify white supremacist notions about what hair is ✌️🏿supposed✌️🏿 to look like. rewirenewsgroup.com/ablc/2017/04/1…
But why do Black women go to such lengths to maintain their hair?
The TL;DR is white supremacy.
Society pushes us to make our hair “professional” or “presentable” and that generally means eschewing natural hairstyles for those deemed "professional" or "presentable" by white European beauty standards.
We can't be too "ethnic."
I wrote about the ways in which Black women adapt, shift, and code-switch in order to comport with standards foisted upon us by white supremacy.
Black women exist under a lot of scrutiny. We often hide our true selves to counteract negative stereotypes about us—that we are too loud, angry, and aggressive. Black women often adapt our style of dress, our emotional responses, and our language just to navigate the world.
And that’s simply to get through the work day.
Now imagine that you’re pregnant, and you go to your OB-GYN—a place where you are supposed to feel safe—only to find out that your doctor is policing your appearance based on racist stereotypes?
It will inevitably place a strain on the trust that should exist in a doctor-patient relationship. Black women already face systemic bias and racist barriers when it comes to medical treatment. There’s a reason that the Black maternal mortality rate is so high.
Placing signage in an OB/GYN office that singles out a cultural practice among Black women contributes to the oppression and mistreatment that pregnant Black women face in the medical system.
At a time when health-care workers should be making this country a more hospitable birthing environment and working to reduce the maternal mortality rate, by targeting Black women and policing their appearance, this clinic in Columbus, Ohio is doing the opposite.
Shameful.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whew! It’s been exactly a year since the Supreme Court shook @AngryBlackLady and @Hegemommy to their core by siding against Louisiana in June Medical Services v. Russo.
As yet another abortion fight looms at the Court, we’re looking back on the significance of the case.
June Medical Services was about a Louisiana law that required abortion providers to get admitting privileges at a local hospital.
These kinds of laws seem reasonable enough, but they are designed to force clinics to close.
Lawmakers claim that admitting privileges laws protect pregnant patients, but that is poppycock.
Due to abortion stigma and the Catholic takeover of hospitals, many hospitals refuse to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers. Lawmakers know this.
Britney Spears appeared remotely in Los Angeles court yesterday and revealed just how oppressive her conservatorship is, telling the court she wants to have another baby, but her father is preventing her from removing her IUD.
“I want to be able to get married and have a baby. I was told right now in the conservatorship, I’m not able to get married or have a baby.”
How is this possible? Britney Spears is 39 years old, has had a successful Vegas residency, and continues to perform and tour.
It’s because for the past 13 years, Britney Spears has been under conservatorship. A conservatorship puts a court-mandated guardian in charge of the decision-making for people deemed unable to act in their own best interests.
This week a coalition of advocates urged action on the Global HER Act, which members of Congress reintroduced earlier this year and would overturn the global gag rule.
Let’s dive into what the gag rule is and why advocates are saying #EndGagNow
THREAD:
The global gag rule prohibits federal funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations that provide abortion services or counseling—or even advocate for the decriminalization of abortion or expansion of services.
“Study after study has demonstrated that the neocolonialist global gag rule devastates health-care access for people around the world, especially those who already face systemic barriers to care.” —@dawnlaguens of @PPact
U.S. Catholic bishops are meeting for their annual spring conference, and one of the things they’re discussing is whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights—like @POTUS—should be denied Communion. #USCCB21
THREAD:
But the majority of U.S. Catholics believe abortion should be legal, as @jamielmanson, president of @Catholic4Choice, told us a couple months ago.
“The way the bishops make it this polarizing issue just is not a reflection of the reality on the ground.” rewirenews.link/3voqgY8
U.S. bishops have been divided for quite some time on how to deal with prominent Catholics who support abortion access.
For the right wing, this issue became even more urgent once Joe Biden came into office.
It’s happening! @Hegemommy and @AngryBlackLady are at @Smashitbreakrm as we speak, to (literally!) take a hammer to some of the worst anti-abortion legislation we've seen.
Tune in right now, by clicking the YouTube livestream link below!
“Hello, everyone! And WELCOME to today’s very exciting event for Rewire News Group! I’m @hegemommy, the SVP and Executive Editor of Rewire News Group—and co-host of our legal podcast, Boom! Lawyered.”
"A couple of weeks ago we asked you, our loyal listeners, readers, and fans, to rank some pretty awful anti-choice legislation and some cringe-worthy quotes from anti-choice lawmakers. We’ve now taken all of that harmful nonsense and put it on items—like this one!" 🔨
Today’s the anniversary of the Supreme Court guaranteeing the right to use birth control—but only for married couples.
Here’s a closer look at the 1965 landmark ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut.
THREAD:
At the time, Connecticut banned the use of contraceptives. So when Estelle Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, opened a birth control clinic with the help of a Yale med school doctor, they were arrested and convicted of violating the law.
But this was their plan all along!
You see, they wanted to use the clinic to challenge the draconian law under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by arguing that banning birth control violated the privacy rights of married couples.