Given the current global climate – society in general as well as environmental concerns – population control has been an issue of concern for many years now. Whether it is talk of limiting family sizes in Asian nations, or pleas for assistance in Africa for impoverished children, the mainstream media has been giving a fair amount of attention to world population.

On its face, one would think that the pro-choice movement would be highly interested in promoting birth control and abortion through the lens of population control, but it remains a sticky situation at best. During the early years of the pro-choice movement – the early 1900’s with Margaret Sanger, and earlier – population control was an issue that was attached to the issue of making birth control available to women.

White women of reasonably comfortable means were encouraged to limit family size so that they could pursue education and careers. Simultaneously, there was talk of the duty of the poor, infirm, insane, or otherwise “undesirable” – they were also encouraged to refrain from having children, often in very severe ways. “Undesirable” then, beyond being poor or otherwise requiring public assistance to survive, also meant women of color and immigrants.

The severe ways in which women were “encouraged” not to have children included surgical sterilization. In the summer of 1973, after the Roe v. Wade decision in January, the case of the Relf sisters came to light. Minnie Lee (12) and Mary Alice (14) had been surgically sterilized after being involved in a drug trial for Depo-Provera. Their mother was illiterate, signed consent with an X, but claimed she didn’t know what she was signing. She thought it had something to do with the Depo-Provera injections, not surgery.

It is a case that doesn’t leap to people’s minds today, but the motivation behind it does. Forgetting about this case (and many others like it) was a mistake made by pro-choice activists in the 1970’s and beyond. Talk of population control today must be tempered with a full understanding of that dark history when white, middle-class pro-choice activists were dangling freedom before their poorer sisters as a privilege leading to a promised land of education and careers that they couldn’t reach.

Although they may have grayed in areas, the lines are still fairly clear between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Talking about being pro-choice for the benefit of population control and less stress on already stretched resources is still difficult. Sticking with the concept that more unwanted children in the world will require more state intervention (and housing with the resurrection of orphanages in the U.S.) is probably the safest route if one wants to avoid the racial and economic issues of the past.