The Deadly Cost of Racial Bias: Addressing the Disparities in Black Maternal Healthcare

The disparities in medical treatment for women of color, particularly Black women, starkly reflect the deep-rooted racial inequities in the U.S. healthcare system. These disparities are evident in higher rates of C-sections, elevated maternal mortality rates, and a lack of adequate pain management compared to white women, even when receiving care from the same doctors under similar conditions. Black women experience maternal mortality rates two to three times higher than their white counterparts, a statistic that should alarm a country that prides itself on advanced medical care. Despite this being a known issue, efforts to address them remain insufficient.

One of the most glaring examples of this disparity is in labor and delivery care, where Black women are subjected to C-sections at higher rates than white women, often without thorough consideration of alternative options. C-sections are a common surgical procedure used to deliver babies when vaginal delivery poses risks. While they can be life-saving, the frequency with which they are performed on Black women highlights a significant issue in maternal healthcare. Black women are 20% more likely than white women to undergo C-sections, often in non-emergency situations driven by subjective diagnoses like fetal distress. This leads to longer recovery times, higher risks of complications, and greater financial strain. 

Disturbingly, studies suggest that unnecessary C-sections for Black women are more likely to occur when operating rooms are empty, pointing to factors beyond medical necessity. One study found that 8% of healthy Black women had C-sections compared to 4.8% of healthy white women when there was no urgent medical reason. This suggests that decisions to perform surgery may be influenced by convenience or implicit racial bias, rather than patient health.

C-sections carry greater risks than vaginal births, including longer recovery times, higher infection rates, and greater difficulty with breastfeeding. These risks exacerbate the vulnerabilities that Black women already face, given their higher maternal mortality rates. The extended recovery required after a C-section can lead to longer hospital stays and increased chances of postpartum complications. The issue of fetal distress, a common justification for C-sections, is often subjective, and Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with it than their white counterparts. This suggests doctors may unconsciously apply different standards when diagnosing Black women, reinforcing disparities in care.

Frequent C-sections among Black women also have long-term implications for their reproductive health. Women who undergo the procedure face higher risks in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine rupture, abnormal placental development, and the need for repeat C-sections. This cycle of unnecessary surgeries creates enduring health risks for women of color, perpetuating maternal care inequities long after the initial procedure.

Financially, C-sections are also more burdensome than vaginal deliveries. On average, private insurance in the U.S. covers $17,000 for a C-section, compared to $11,500 for a vaginal birth. For low-income women of color, this financial strain can be devastating, particularly when paired with the extended recovery and higher risk of postpartum complications.

This disparity is not due to differences in the medical needs of Black and white women, but rather the systemic racism that pervades healthcare. The fact that these disparities emerge in non-emergency situations highlights the influence of implicit and structural biases, rather than purely health-related concerns. For instance, doctors may have a lower threshold for surgical intervention when treating Black women, driven by preconceptions about poorer birth outcomes. While the intention may be to “prevent harm,” these interventions often lead to more complications, longer hospital stays, and reduced breastfeeding success.

The recent overturning of Roe v. Wade compounds these disparities, placing yet another barrier between women of color and reproductive healthcare. With restricted access to abortion, existing health inequities are likely to worsen, disproportionately impacting Black and Indigenous women who already face immense challenges in accessing care.

Addressing these disparities requires not only reforms in how care is administered but also a reckoning with the deep-seated racism embedded in the medical field. Clinicians must be equipped with the tools to recognize implicit biases and understand how structural racism affects their decision-making. Some states, like California, have begun mandating implicit bias training for healthcare providers, but much more remains to be done.

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation where Black maternal health is getting worse. Dismantling the legacy of racism in maternal healthcare requires structural changes that ensure women of color receive the equitable, high-quality care they deserve. This means not only improving medical education but also enacting policy reforms to address the economic, social, and healthcare barriers these women face. Failure to act will only deepen the health crisis for Black mothers, perpetuating a cycle of inequity that must be broken. The U.S. healthcare system has failed Black women for far too long.

30 Years of Progress: The Evolution and Impact of the Violence Against Women Act

On September 13th, 1994, thirty years ago, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law. The monumental act has been a lifeline for women across the country, making history as one of the most influential pieces of legislation for women’s rights ever to be passed. Enacted and upheld for the last three decades, this law covers survivors of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA protects survivors, regardless of their sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation and regardless of the sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of the person who has caused harm. 

The need for this legislation came from the gross failures of the legal and healthcare systems to take women’s claims of gender-based violence seriously. Before this enactment, women faced a system that routinely ignored or brutalized rape victims, prioritizing other emergencies over their trauma. Prosecutors often demanded that survivors prove they fought back, and defense attorneys used their past sexual history to discredit them. A variety of grassroots activists and many survivors of domestic assault, some who even became leaders in this movement, used their voices to fight for change to these injustices. 

In 1993, former Senator and now President Joe Biden introduced the first Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which came about after a three-year investigation into the pervasive issue of violence against women. While Biden championed the legislation, much of the heavy lifting behind the bill was done by his legal counsel, Victoria Nourse, who played a pivotal role in drafting the bill’s language and ensuring its comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Nourse, a highly respected legal scholar and professor, has since built a reputation as an expert in constitutional law, criminal law, and legislation. 

Along with Nourse’s efforts, Ellie Smeal and the Feminist Majority Foundation also played a major part in the act’s drafting. “I attended every meeting I could go to to support the bill. Biden had a team of only women drafting it,” said Smeal. These measures were revolutionary at the time and have since provided vital protections to millions of women nationwide. With bipartisan support, the bill was eventually passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton. 

Since then, the VAWA has emerged as a critical response to injustices and has continued to be a safeguard. The legislation has been reauthorized in 2000, 2005, 2013, and most recently in 2022. The fifth reauthorization of the VAWA, which was supported and signed into law by President Joe Biden, continues to build on this legacy by not only reauthorizing critical grant programs until 2027 but also expanding the law to address emerging and pressing issues. It reflects a deeper understanding of the intersections of violence, power, and inequality, particularly focusing on marginalized communities such as LGBTQ+ individuals and survivors in rural areas, who are often underserved. 

The law’s extension of Tribal court jurisdiction over non-Native offenders on Tribal land is a particularly important measure, recognizing the sovereignty of Indigenous communities and the unique challenges they face. This reauthorization also takes bold steps in addressing the digital age’s complexities, introducing a federal civil cause of action for those whose intimate images are distributed without consent. The updates to programs like the SMART Prevention Program and the CHOOSE Youth Program further emphasize the importance of early intervention and comprehensive support for those affected by domestic and dating violence, underscoring that prevention is as critical as the response. Finally, the law’s connection to firearm safety through the NICS Denial Notification Act adds another layer of protection, recognizing the lethal intersection of guns and domestic violence. 

While it has undoubtedly made strides in providing safety and justice, VAWA’s continual need for reauthorization and expansion reminds us that the fight against violence is far from over. As new threats emerge—whether through technology, changing social dynamics, or gaps in existing protections—VAWA must adapt to address these challenges. The expansion of protections for underserved communities, the inclusion of cybercrimes, and the enhancement of trauma-informed practices all point to how our understanding of violence, especially against women, is broadening. Advocating for protections for women, like the Biden-Harris administration, which has done so much to keep up with these forever-evolving injustices, is what gives hope to women across the country that they are not alone in this ongoing fight for their rights and safety.

>

Support eh ERA banner