Elaine Riddick is a black pro-life activist with a tragic life story. She was raped, became pregnant, gave birth to her son, and was subsequently forcibly sterilized by the state of North Carolina. The state’s eugenics board deemed her “feebleminded” and “promiscuous,” authorizing her sterilization.
She has the rest of her life crusading against these forms of injustice — and against the violence and injustice of abortion. A profile of Riddick from a few years ago described her as “passionately pro-life” and noted that she shares “her story at anti-abortion events around the country.” She has written at length about her pro-life views.
But a recent profile of Riddick, by Washington Post reporter Meena Venkataramanan, attempts to obscure Riddick’s pro-life views and paint her as a supporter of abortion and Roe v. Wade. The headline of the piece is “She survived a forced sterilization. She fears more could occur post-Roe.” The meaning we are supposed to take from this, of course, is that this survivor is a supporter of Roe, and therefore a supporter of abortion.
The piece shares Riddick’s story situated in the context of a post-Roe world, making it appear as though her advocacy work against forced sterilization will be hampered by the outcome in Dobbs. “With the Supreme Court’s decision last month in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states now have full license to legally compel a person to continue a pregnancy,” is one such line, implying that somehow a law forbidding the direct killing of an unborn child is comparable to policies allowing rape or coerced sterilization.
The article goes on to say, without citation, that “some lawyers and activists worry that the use of forced sterilization could be expanded after the Dobbs decision,” and it describes Dobbs as a ruling that “compelled pregnancy.” The piece concludes by circling back to Riddick, who, once again, is cast as an opponent of the ruling in Dobbs, despite being pro-life:
As a survivor of forced sterilization, Riddick worries about the impact of Dobbs. Although she opposes abortion, she is concerned that the decision will lead to more forced sterilizations among Black women. She worries that the government could restrict family size for people receiving government assistance.
Ultimately, Riddick believes that “women should have control of their reproductive health” and that the government should not interfere with their decisions.
“I think a woman should have control of her body,” she said. “I didn’t have control of my body, and I have been devastated since I found out that this is what happened to me. I never had the chance to say yes or no.”
The article is error-ridden and full of the author’s opinions masquerading as facts. But what’s most appalling about it is how it uses Riddick’s story and life-long advocacy as a defense of abortion, despite the fact that Riddick herself is deeply opposed to the taking of innocent human life.