Week 6, Part 2 Reflection Summary: Intersectionality and Reproductive Justice

 Week 6, Part 2 Reflection Summary: Intersectionality and Reproductive Justice

Week 6, Part 2 focused on intersectionality and reproductive justice, and it helped me understand how power, policy, and inequality can shape people’s most intimate life decisions. Professor Tsuchitani began with clear announcements that also felt like guidance for how to succeed in the course. He reminded us that there are no assignments due this week so we can study for the midterm next week on Wednesday the 18th. He also explained how important MLA citations are in this class and made the rule very direct: “no citation, no credit.” At first this sounded strict, but I understand the purpose. Ethnic Studies is not just about having opinions. It requires evidence, engagement with course materials, and careful reasoning. That rule encourages students to build credible arguments, not just personal reactions.

The lecture then moved into the main topic: intersectionality and reproductive justice. Professor Tsuchitani explained that we must distinguish between “abortion rights” and the “reproductive justice movement.” This difference mattered to me because it showed how a single-issue focus can miss the deeper reality of people’s lives. Abortion rights often focuses on legal access to abortion and contraception. Reproductive justice goes beyond that and asks broader questions: Who has real access to healthcare? Who is protected from state violence? Who has the power to decide whether to have children, not have children, and raise children safely? Even though he did not provide direct answers (because he wanted us to engage with the textbook), the questions he asked helped me understand the framework of this unit.

One of the most disturbing parts of the lecture was the history of reproductive control in the United States. Professor Tsuchitani pointed out key examples that we should study from the textbook: the reproduction of enslaved women and how it was controlled, the targeting of Indigenous women through reproductive control, and gender-segregated immigration policies connected to Asian exclusion. He also mentioned anti-miscegenation laws as a form of racially targeted population control. This part made me realize that reproduction has never been only a “private” issue. It has been shaped by law, ideology, economics, and racial power. When the state controls reproduction, it often targets specific groups, especially women of color, Indigenous women, immigrants, and the poor.

The lecture introduced eugenics as a major historical force behind these policies. Professor Tsuchitani described eugenics as a way “science” was used to target vulnerable groups, which connects to what we have learned earlier about scientific racism. He reminded us about Race: The Power of an Illusion and how “science” was used to justify racial hierarchy even though it was not objectively grounded in rigorous research. This connection helped me see how harmful ideologies can hide behind the language of science. If something is presented as scientific or neutral, people may accept it more easily, even when it is really about racism and control. This is why he asked questions like: What role did eugenic thinking play in the Immigration Act of 1924? How did scientific racism advocate for racial exclusion? These prompts pushed me to think about cause and effect, and how ideas become policy.

Professor Tsuchitani explained that the Immigration Act of 1924 (the National Origins Act) included nationality caps intended to protect a white identity of the United States. He connected this to earlier laws such as the Immigration Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalization to free white men, and to legal cases like Ozawa and Thind, where whiteness was defined flexibly in ways that excluded Asians. This historical path helped me understand that immigration policy is not just about border management; it often reflects racial ideology. The lecture framed this as part of a longer project of controlling the racial demographics of the country. Even when the language used is “national origins” or “public good,” it can function as racial control.

The lecture also outlined how eugenics influenced public policy related to contraception and sterilization, especially between 1927 and 1975. Professor Tsuchitani described how sterilization was presented as a public health measure and a so-called public good, including efforts to reduce Black fertility through population control logic. He noted that by 1932 more than 26 states passed targeted sterilization laws, often affecting both race and poverty. He also mentioned that by 1970, federal family planning policies targeted inner-city Black communities. The most painful part was learning about specific cases such as the Relf sisters (12 and 14 years old, in 1973) and the case Madrigal v. Quilligan (targeting Chicanas in Los Angeles in 1975). These examples show how intersectionality is not abstract. Children, race, gender, class, and power intersected in ways that produced serious harm.

What affected me most was how the lecture showed these practices were not limited to one group. Professor Tsuchitani described how policies targeted Puerto Rican women through sterilization practices, justified through racist stereotypes about being “hyper-fertile.” He stated that by 1965, over a third of Puerto Rican women had been sterilized through government operations. He also described forced sterilizations of Indigenous women through systems tied to the Indian Health Service, including threats of withholding benefits and sterilization without patient consent. The statistics he shared—such as estimates that large percentages of Indigenous women were sterilized in certain periods—were shocking and made me think about how violence can be hidden in institutions that are supposed to provide care.

Another key message was that eugenic racism is not only in the past. Professor Tsuchitani pointed to reports of sterilizations in immigrant detention centers and whistleblower reports of procedures without informed consent as recently as 2020. He mentioned other unethical practices like refusal to provide care or medication, and he framed this as ongoing structural harm. Whether every detail continues today or changes over time, the lecture’s point was clear: when vulnerable people are under the control of institutions, abuse can happen, especially when racism and dehumanizing ideology are present. The phrase “on our watch” stood out again. He explained he was not trying to create despair, but to show the need for urgency and responsibility. Knowledge comes with responsibility.

The lecture then transitioned to the reproductive justice movement as a form of agency and resistance. This was important because it balanced the history of oppression with a focus on organizing and change. Professor Tsuchitani framed this movement as a response to reproductive control and injustice. He asked questions we need to answer from the textbook: What is reproductive justice? How did it come into being? Why must it include more than abortion rights and access to birth control? What are the movement’s core principles and areas of advocacy? These questions helped me see reproductive justice as a comprehensive framework that centers people most affected by overlapping systems of oppression. It also critiques a white-led movement that focuses on single issues, because single-issue politics can ignore how race, class, citizenship, disability, and access to healthcare shape real-life choices.

Professor Tsuchitani also referenced bell hooks and encouraged students to explore her work. He highlighted themes such as love as transformation, race and representation, and meaningful education and politics. I liked how this part shifted the tone. After hearing so much painful history, the idea of love as transformation felt like a grounding reminder that social justice work is not only resistance, but also building new values and relationships. It suggests that solidarity is not only about anger at injustice, but also about committed care, ethical responsibility, and imagining a different future.

Finally, the midterm review advice was practical and connected to the course goals. Professor Tsuchitani suggested studying week by week by identifying key concepts, defining them, and—most importantly—applying them to systemic analysis using examples and case studies. He also emphasized that each week includes oppression on one side and BIPOC agency and resistance on the other side. That structure helps me study because it reminds me not to memorize isolated facts, but to understand patterns: how systems work and how people resist them. His advice to compare and contrast movements (like the East LA blowouts and the Third World Liberation Front strikes) also shows what he values: analytical thinking, cause-and-effect reasoning, and significance. Ethnic Studies is not only about what happened; it is about why it happened, how it worked, and what lessons it offers for racial equity and justice today.

Overall, Week 6, Part 2 deepened my understanding of intersectionality by showing how reproductive policies and healthcare can become sites of racialized control. It also helped me see why reproductive justice is broader than abortion rights, because it centers lived experiences shaped by multiple systems of power. The lecture was difficult at times because the content is disturbing, but it also felt meaningful because it connected history, policy, and present-day responsibility. I left the lecture understanding that critical knowledge is not passive. If we learn how systems harm people, we also have a responsibility to think about how systems can be challenged—through evidence, analysis, and solidarity.

Works Cited

hooks, bell. [Title of assigned excerpt or chapter if provided on Canvas]. [Publisher, Year if known].

Tsuchitani, Scott. “Week 6, Part 2 Lecture: Intersectionality and Reproductive Justice.” Ethnic Studies, Canvas, 2026.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “The Urgency of Intersectionality.” TED, 2016.