Intersectionality Part 2

TRIGGER WARNING: Mentions and discusses violence, murder/homicide, sexual assault, human trafficking, and many other related subjects.

I’ll keep this short, we have a lot to finish. Great Plains Action Society– an indigenous led non-profit of folks who want a better, more indigenized future for ourselves, our lands, and our communities– is committed to addressing and mitigating the ongoing harm caused by settler colonialism. This is the fourth installment of the Protect the Sacred zine series, specifically looking at the intersectionality between the MMIR crisis and Abortion Access. This is the last installment that was originally intended, but this project has evolved with the year. In the wake of recent school shootings and the writing of my article “There is no defensible position against gun violence”, I have decided that simply informing you about the problem is not enough. Please stay tuned for our next, installment

Our Protect the Sacred initiative goes beyond protecting our lands or our indigenous relatives. Being born Indigenous is a political act as settler descendant society is still intent on erasing our sovereignty and very existence. We are usually left out of important national conversations– yet we suffer some of the highest rates of violence, sexual assault, suicide, and depression in the country.

It is no surprise to our Indigenous communities that many of our people fall through the cracks of this reactive, wealth-centric system. With little to no protection and resources, our Indigenous relatives fall victim to sex trafficking, murder, rape, and other unspeakable crimes. We are not blind to the fact that we are not the only people falling through cracks. Being intentional and intersectional means acknowledging the similarities in how systemic oppression oppresses every marginalized and underserved person while working to undo the specific harms done uniquely to indigenous peoples. We stand with all our houseless relatives. We stand with all our 2slgbtqia+ relatives. We stand with all of our BIPOC relatives. We stand with all our over policed neighbors, citizens or not. We stand together because we know what it means to fall through the cracks, and we can better fill them when we work together and leave no one behind.

With Love and Power

The GPAS Team

Written in September/October 2025

Polarization: Abortion Access 

I have already given slightly more comprehensive histories about abortion access in two previous zines, “Abortion Access and Indigenous People” and “Plan C: A Medication Abortion Guide”, but I want to specifically look at public opinion.

Prior to the establishment of the United States as a country, the acceptability of abortions fluctuated based on the foreign nation in power. For the first 100 years of the United State’s history, we had no laws regulating abortions or midwifery. If you needed an abortion, one would find one, generally discreetly to save face in the face of societal embarrassment. Abortions were regarded as necessary, though also shameful or confusing. 

Midwifery is a centuries-old holistic medical practice, and refers to women-centered childbirth and other pre- and post- natal care. Laws restricting or banning both abortions and midwifery came about because white, male gynecologists felt their medical practice was threatened by “inferior women’s work” and, probably more importantly, free services provided by midwives. This kicked off the previously discussed run smear campaigns and legislative bans against midwifery in the late 1880s-mid 1900s, referred to in “Abortion Access and Indigenous Peoples”.

Through those smear campaigns, and the abortion bans they passed, Abortion became this reviled taboo, too despicable to let silly women make their own decisions about and thus quickly removing power from black and indigenous women. Abortion, by the early 1910s, became a nasty, immoral, beastly act, seen as something only uncivilized people did to mutilate themselves, among other things. Culturally, this took root quickly given the support of the catholic church and other evangelist movements. In that Christian context, the “self-mutilation” was put in direct opposition to “God’s will”. (I know my trans and gender queer readers will find that rhetoric familiar. These talking points have existed for 150ish years.)

The first fight for abortion rights in the United States started in the 1910s, and was led by far fewer women than the previous suffragette movement. Namely, because the smear campaigns worked. White Christian women (aka the only women who held much power at all at the time) were largely on board for leaving behind of black and indigenous folks rights, especially to their benefit.

BIPOC peoples in the first fight for abortion rights, like Professor Denise Oliver Velez and Dr. Helen Rodriguez Trias, weren’t involved until much later. This is due in no small part to the fact that all the time before that was spent fighting for the right to be recognized as people and full citizens. Not all BIPOC people were on board for the fight for abortion rights in the ‘60s and ‘70s— we are not a monolith after all— and the stigma and fear surrounding reproductive care and western doctors in general kept many from joining the cause– especially among Latino and Indigenous folks, for whom the emotional and physical wounds caused by forced sterilization were very fresh (“ending” in 1976).

Americans still won the right to abortion through Roe v. Wade, though it wasn’t without caveats. I’ve criticized early abortion rights activists for not pushing for better abortion accessibility, though it should be pointed out that accessibility was no small feat to achieve. Here I’m summarizing Planned Parenthood’s “Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today” to prove a point, but go read it, it’s easily digestible. 

Conservative legislators were so outraged by the right to abortion passing, they did all they could to restrict it as fast as possible (Hyde Amendment, 1976), and even attempted to overturn it as soon as they could build on public conservative outrage (Hatch Amendment, 1982, failed). If they couldn’t overturn it, legislators would stop aid organizations from even talking about reproductive rights if they wanted any American support (Global gag rule, 1984). Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992) ended in a bit of a draw, protecting Roe V Wade, but allowing states to add restrictions before a person can seek an abortion and a new “undue burden” framework, which Cornell Law describes as follows: “If the person seeking an abortion of a non-viable fetus could prove that they would endure an undue burden as a result of a state restriction on abortion, then the statute imposing an undue burden would be struck down either entirely or partially.” This framework set a disastrous precedent once under the later 6 week abortion bans passed in the 2020s because it puts the burden of proof on patients who are actively having complications in their pregnancies. Patients have already passed from sepsis after being denied an abortion while having a miscarriage.

Eventually, second trimester abortions could be banned (Gonzales v Carhart, Gonzales v Planned Parenthood, 2007) and some states took that opening for restrictions as far as they could until the supreme court got involved (Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt, 2016 and June Medical Services v Russo, 2020). Finally, in 2021, Texas was able to pass the first 6 week abortion ban, the summer before Roe was overturned with the Dobbs vs Jackson decision (2022).

These moves opposing abortion access have largely been done by a single party chipping away at Roe and undermining its potency until they had set the stage to overturn it. All of this effort from that one party has made this a partisan issue, making it difficult for non-profit organizations to even talk about. Meanwhile, initially, the other side wasn’t as staunchly pro-access as it is now. If anything, they were moderate, following a sentiment– that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare”-- echoed by Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard to name a few (I am very sorry if the phrasing is confusing, I cannot name parties for tax and censorship reasons). Vox has an interesting article, entitled “How the abortion debate moved away from “safe, legal, and rare” by Anna North. 

Truly progressive politicians are few and far between, most try to maintain a “normal” that people are at least used to dealing with, but their constituents aren’t. More folks are getting less and less moderate, rooted in civil liberties and dignity for all, while conservative opinion stays where it was 120 years ago— in some cases even becoming more extreme than even the original racist ideals of the 1880s. This gap in ideals between a perceived two sides continues to widen– exacerbating each other and thus polarizing. It’s tempting to believe that spite plays a part in this, and maybe to an extent it does, but it’s important to remember how much misinformation we have access to, and our whole realities can be built on that misinformation. But we have to keep talking about it, and the conversation doesn’t end at abortion. 

Parallels in the Polarization of Gender Affirming Care

World Health Organization (WHO) describes gender affirming care on their webpage: “Gender-affirmative health care can include any single or combination of a number of social, psychological, behavioral or medical (including hormonal treatment or surgery) interventions designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity.” Gender affirming care has its roots in trans history, and as a field of medical study it is widely regarded to have been invented as a field of medical study in the 1920s by German physician, Magnus Hirschfeld. 

Harvard Public Health Journal’s article, “To protect gender-affirming care, we must learn from trans history” by Alejandra Caraballo, does an excellent job of illustrating how the trans community– and gender affirming care by extension– was polarized in the American public consciousness. I consider the article required reading for my point here, but I will highlight this excerpt here:

“In the ensuing years, the backlash accelerated. In the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan’s Department of Health and Human Services determined that gender-affirming care was experimental and therefore not covered by federal insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Most private insurance companies followed suit. This decision had far-reaching implications for transgender individuals, as it significantly limited their access to medically necessary treatments, including both hormone therapy and surgeries, and reinforced the stigma surrounding transgender health care. It also created a catch-22—medical care could not be covered because it was “experimental”—but research evaluating treatment efficacy could not be conducted either because of the lack of federal funding.” This excerpt describes the effect of the rise of trans-exclusive radical feminist (TERF) and public backlash against 2SLGBTQIA+ peoples in the late ‘70s after monumental wins for the development of medical procedures for and civil rights of women and queer folks.

Despite the growth of knowledge around gender affirming care and access to it, we’re in the middle of a similar wave of backlash right now. Our healthcare is being restricted in order to oppress trans folks at the expense of other areas of health– even going as far to shut down whole clinics for having previously offered gender affirming care or abortions. This rise in TERF ideology is deeply rooted in modern conservatism and its ebb and flow in current popularity, and in the last decade we’ve seen a parallel in the rise of queer acceptance and medical knowledge followed swiftly by TERF and conservative backlash– a pattern mirrored again with abortion access’ history and public opinion surrounding it. Our opinions at GPAS on the inherent harm caused by TERF ideology and its roots in hetero-patriarchy could be its own series of articles (I’ll get around to writing it out eventually). For now I suggest doing your own research on TERF ideology, including an article by the National Women’s Law Center, entitled, “Happy Pride, don’t be a Terf” by Lark Lewis and Jordan Reynolds.

I want to still make one thing clear: Gender affirming care is ultimately— like any other form of necessary health care— good and worth it for the people who need it. And the people who need Gender affirming care goes beyond trans and queer folks. Theodore Schall and Jacob Moses are two researchers who published this study, showing that cis-gendered folks use gender affirming care more often than trans folks. The full study is behind a paywall, luckily the Hastings Center for Bioethics published “Gender-Affirming Care for Cisgender People: Q&A with Theodore Schall and Jacob Moses”. Moses says during the interview, “I was really struck by how similar justifications grounded in authenticity have been offered by both cisgender and transgender patients for why they should—or shouldn’t—elect particular interventions. And to be clear: we think either availing oneself of or declining medical interventions can be gender-affirming.”

Under the WHO’s definition, gender affirming surgeries include breast augmentation or reduction, mastectomies, sex reassignment surgery, and other cosmetic or reconstructive surgery. Still other non-surgical treatments and products that assist with gender affirmation famously include Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and hormone blockers, as well as laser hair removal, a hair cut, vocal training/speech therapy, chest binding, push-up bras, genital tucking, and more but of all of these treatments, HRT and sex reassignment surgeries get the most attention. In addition to being gender affirming for both cis and trans folks, as Moses and Schall have found, some of these are also medically necessary for certain medical conditions.

HRT in particular is widely discussed and polarized, though its usage in medicine goes beyond affirming care. Progesterone exists in a variety of forms for multiple uses: treating endometriosis, PCOS, menopausal symptoms, abnormal menstrual bleeding, amenorrhea, breast/uterine/kidney cancer symptoms, and weight loss due to AIDS and cancer as well as being an active ingredient for IVF and various birth controls. Similarly, Estrogen is also used to treat menopausal symptoms while Testosterone is used to treat male hypogonadism in both adults and teens (which is when the body doesn’t produce enough testosterone and can lead to Erectile Dysfunction, Osteoporosis, infertility, and other health issues). Disclaimer: I am not a licensed medical professional, please ask a doctor any questions you have about any of these hormones and their uses before using them.

As of April, 2025, 27 states have passed bans on gender affirming care for youth (up to age 17 and in two states age 18). 6 of those states also criminalize healthcare providers for providing gender affirming care for youth. These bans aren’t just about the sex reassignment surgeries (which are not typically prescribed for youth any way), and most include HRT and hormone blockers. As of august 2025, the Trump administration has been acting to exacerbate the situation even in states where gender affirming care is legal, by allegedly illegally intimidating hospitals into stopping or restricting the gender affirming care they provide– which puts gender affirming care for ALL patients, not just minors, in jeopardy.

As indigenous peoples, our access to healthcare is already limited (as briefly discussed in Abortion Access and Indigenous Peoples) and any health procedure becoming controversial in the eyes of politics immediately puts our access to that care in jeopardy as so many of us rely on government funded programs and institutions in order to receive care, be it medical assistance, state insurance, the IHS, or other state run hospitals. Restricting and banning the use of state and federal funds for vital care kills people, and BIPOC folks face the bulk of that. As queer indigenous peoples our relationships to gender are already complicated by the loss of culture and teachings about two-spirit relatives and their roles in our communities, adding on the socioeconomic barriers and public stigma (both in and outside of our communities) makes it nigh impossible for many of us to receive the care we need. It has only been through the collective action and tireless work of queer and indigenous medical organizations locally here in Minnesota that I have been able to receive ANY care for my physical and mental health, let alone gender affirming care. (Shout out Native American Community Clinic (NACC), Mashkiki Waakaaigan Pharmacy, and Twin Cities Trans Mutual Aid (TCTMA).)

These systemic barriers obviously bleed over into the way we spend money on cancer funding, menopause treatment, new treatments and better treatments tailored to women and BIPOC folks (because our physiologies are legitimately different and do not exist only within the range that white male bodies do). The polarization of each of these seemingly separate subjects all culminates in the same systemic oppression that makes it difficult for folks in MMIR situations to get to safety or be protected. Endorsements of hateful ideals and reducing protections for vulnerable communities also leads to the spike of socially acceptable violence we’ve been seeing towards queer and femme folks. Those protections have existed and do exist (for now) and we know which ones work. One such protection that is vital to keep tabs on is VAWA.

Violence Against Women Act

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994, is one of the first and few laws that specifically protect women from violence, or at least that was the original intent from then Senator, Joe Biden. In addition to starting the first federal efforts to prevent sexual assault and provide victim services, the original iteration included a private civil rights remedy that allowed victims to sue their attackers, when previously there were NO reliable legal avenues to pursue this. In 2000, that remedy was struck down– congresspersons argued that the domestic violence crimes were not economic in nature despite an earlier test that suggested that domestic violence cost Americans between $5 and $10 billion per year in health care, criminal justice, and other related costs. With the loss of this civil rights remedy it’s very difficult to sue stalkers, rapists, and abusers directly on a federal level, though state laws might exist depending on where you are.

VAWA’s protections continued to grow with each reauthorization. Like many other laws previously discussed, VAWA is a law that has to be renewed by congress every few years or so. Later iterations of the bill included improving services for victims of sexual violence, domestic violence, and stalking; providing education and training about violence against women for victim advocates, health professionals, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges; banning states from charging victims for rape tests; criminalizing cyberstalking; protections for battered immigrants, SA survivors, and victims of dating violence; allowing DV victims to obtain custody from across state lines so they can remain safe; and more protections than I can list here. 

More recently, VAWA has been put in precarious positions, having been postponed during President Trump’s first presidency. See, the programming under VAWA requires funding, which the bill, usually as part of larger budgetary omnibus bills, provides that funding to many organizations and government departments including in the form of grants. If that grant money gets postponed, programs don’t get funded, which for some organizations who can rely SOLELY on federal funds, can be catastrophic. We saw this play out this year as Trump attempted to suspend ALL federal funding, causing many non profits to either enact mass lay-offs or shut down programs because they could not pay for them without that funding, still others were swamped with backlogs of cases they didn’t previously have the resources to attend to during the funding gap. [insert news article about it].

While Trump and his congressional supporters worked to undermine VAWA’s reauthorization and its new gun restriction policy for convicts of SA, domestic Violence, and stalking in 2019, they were hard at work on Trump’s answer to the MMIR crisis: Operation Lady Justice. This performative piece of legislation does not in any way replace VAWA and the massive amount of protections and programming it provides, though the research and statistics that it funded are needed and necessary. This two-faced tactic gave the media a lot to talk about, but a piece I want to highlight comes from our Executive Director, Sikowiss Nobiss, and her op-ed I mentioned earlier.

Her article summary reads: “President Trump’s MMIWG executive order is problematic because it is contradicted by actions that do not match intent to serve Indigenous Peoples with integrity. While in office, Trump has supported misogynistic and racist legislation, acts and people, for example, with his appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court or having Steve Bannon (known white supremacist) serve in his White House as Chief Strategist. This administration continues to uplift a White supremacist, heteropatriarchal agenda by holding VAWA hostage, diminishing Native American Heritage Month, targeting Indigenous migrants, ignoring LGBTQIA+ and Two Spirit issues, belittling the #MeToo movement, perpetuating harmful institutions like man-camps through the support of fossil fuel extraction, and continuously voting “no” on legislation that will benefit the Native American population.” Her article goes into great detail and is worth the read to gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation. 

While we are less than a year into Trump’s second term, there have been no moves restricting VAWA this year (as far as I can tell). Many are worried about a second attempt given his crackdown against immigrant and indigenous rights, whose rights are both expanded and uplifted by VAWA.

For Indigenous peoples, many of the programs supporting victims of sexual assault and domestic violence on tribal lands are funded or supported by VAWA. Additionally, a 2013 addition to VAWA expanded tribal sovereignty by guaranteeing jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-natives against native people on reservations. This used to be under federal jurisdiction and thus many of those cases were dropped or postponed for ages, making it impossible for victims to receive any kind of justice in our broken legal system (I cannot tell you the number of horror stories of women and BIPOC folks in my life who have been told that the state would not press charges against their attackers for SA, assault, stalking, and more. It is so much more common that you would ever hope to think).

It’s worth mentioning that VAWA also provides some of the only protections for battered immigrants. The American Immigration Council (a nonprofit subsidiary of the American Immigration Lawyers Association dedicated to immigration law news) has a fact sheet I’d recommend for summarized details.

Conclusion

All of this to say, the intersectionality of these issues and the groups of people involved should show us exactly how intertwined our liberation and successes are with one another. Great Plains Action Society understands that none of our initiatives can be achieved without the other and that we cannot win any of these fights alone. I hope this foundation through this zine series has instilled the history and fury you need to find your way to joining the cause. Organizations like GPAS need your help to build power, write and vote on ballot issues, share in mutual aid to help folks who’ve fallen through the chasms in our society, elect leaders who will fight for our rights or bully politicians into working for us, not corporate health insurance companies and racist assholes. Our collective liberation and lives cannot be won without banning together. Issues within one racial community do not just belong to that community, none of our systemic problems are mutually exclusive, if oppressive shit is happening in your city, it’s probably happening elsewhere too. Find hope in your fellows fighting your same fight. Building solidarity with each other is vital. 

So what do we do?

In the first installment of this zine series, I mentioned my intent to write a companion piece, entitled “So What Do We Do?” to answer that exact question with how to get involved, coalitions and orgs to be aware of, and individual actions you can take in your daily life and community. I will still write that zine (likely a year late, oops), but I will endeavor to give you a shortened version here:

• Stay informed

  • There’s so much new information, staying on top of it all feels like an impossible task. Start speaking with your friends and relatives. Trade information, share whatever political gossip you can get your hands on, bust some misconceptions, make it part of your regular routine to TALK to people about what’s happening in your community. None of my friends knew about MMIR until I told them. Some of my classmates didn't think there were indigenous people left until I told them. Talk to them.

• Volunteer

  • Whether it’s harm reduction or soup kitchens or canvassing, there’s always mutual aid that needs doing. Check out local organizations in your area for their volunteer opportunities, build relationships with organizers (trust me they want to know you), and if there’s no one doing the work you want to see in your community, you have an opportunity to fill the gap. 

• Educate yourself

  • This zine series has been a catch all. This is your 101. You are absolutely not expected to be an expert on MMIR or harm reduction or missing persons cases after this collection. You are likely not equipped to take on the MMIR crisis, or abortion access across the US, or systemic racism in our health care or justice system— I’d wager no one is. This is your step 1 to be caught up before you start trying to save the world, or your piece of it anyway. Learn how to administer and carry Narcan. Learn the signs and phone numbers for domestic violence cases in your area. Take a class on how to protect your neighbors from ICE. 

• Speak Out

  • Make your voice heard to your legislators, voice your concerns to your mayor, stand up for people who are being bullied by police or abusers (in the safest way possible, of course, this is not a call to put yourself in harm’s way). Let vulnerable folks in your circle know the resources that exist and how to use them. 

• Donate

  • Chances are, someone is doing this work in your community. It’s a fact that programs like those funded by VAWA and orgs that are federally funded are egregiously and precariously underfunded right now. To grassroots orgs like Great Plains Action Society, the individual donors always mean the most to us.