The above is a quote from Allison Anders in an interview she gave to Wonderland magazine in 2015.  Throughout the film it become apparent the Andrews had no idea what she was actually documenting.  In an attempt to capitalize on a subculture by creating a film around a group of Mexican American women, she inadvertently documented their responses to the structures of systemic oppression they faced daily.  Andrews actively attempted to silence that and focus on the women's aesthetics as a sub culture.  Before analyzing the film it is important to understand that the storytelling is flawed, as it is being told from an Anglo woman's perspective.  The women are not given agency over the telling of their own stories because Andrews takes full credit for writing the script.  With this being said, it does inadvertently make references to larger structural oppressions that coincide with the reproductive justice framework. 

• "The girls I was working with, they were getting shot at and standing alongside people getting killed. I was more interested in the girls, the subculture as a pop culture, the music, the clothes, and how they interacted with one another.”

Systemic Oppression Two-fold

The women in the film experience reproductive oppression two fold due to being Mexican American.  Their Mexican culture offers them reproductive oppression through Catholicism.  Although not explicitly referenced the women can be seen praying to saints, living in homes decorated with religious figures hung on walls, and even gift each other scapular necklaces with saints for protection.  This would coincide with the patriarchal double standard supported by Catholicism where women are promiscuous for having sex out of wedlock while men are not, and why the children are a mother's responsibility and not the father's.  We get an indication of this when the women reference each other's virginity.  In American culture the woman are oppressed by not fitting into a society that elevates the Anglo population.  American reproductive rights have revolved around this "fit family" politic where only the affluent are seen as being "fit" to have children.  However, when Big Sleepy is released from jail and is determined to get herself out of the gang life and into a well paying job, she is unable to do so.  What she finds is that job applications are by design exclusionary to her.  She is eliminated from applying because she has no previous experience in the field and has a criminal record both which are signifiers of a larger systemic oppression.  She is unable to put herself in a position within American culture to be seen as a "fit" even though she has the desire.

Public Assistance and Motherhood

• "A 1965 Gallup poll, initiated by the Population Council, demonstrated that by and large the general public believed that welfare recipients were deceitful, lazy, and lacking initiative."                                                                                                              - Elena R. Gutiérrez in Policing Pregnant Pilgrims

Sad Girl and Mousie both had children by Ernesto and both women were on welfare, trying to make ends meet with food stamps.  On more than one occasion the women expressed how the help government assistance was still not enough to provide sufficient food.  The flaw in the narrative is that Andrews emphasizes that the women were living in poverty to begin with, are at home most of the time, and likely did not work.  What Andrews fails to see is that woman should have bodily autonomy and be able to reproduce if they want.  She fails to see that the cost of childcare that would enable them to get jobs (if they were able to do so) was beyond their means.  The representation of Sad Girl and Mousie's parenting were indicative of Andrews' bias.  Furthermore, this situation is an example of ADC or Aid to Dependent Children which provided assistance to children whose families had low to no income during a time of deep economic crisis.  "The program was created as a "means tested entitlement which subsidized the income of families where fathers were deceased, absent, or unable to work."  The blindspot occurred with fathers that had jobs, were present, and did not make a living wage.  It excluded entire marginalized communities including farm workers.

How does this narrative coincide with policy in 1996?

Mi Vida Loca's depicted experiences are part of a larger political focus during 1996.  On August 22, President Clinton signed into law The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.  This required women to work in order to receive benefits.  This Act made it so only affluent families could afford the privilege of a stay at home mom and so marginalized communities now had to strain for childcare on top of other responsibilities.  The release of Mi Vida Loca did not cause the PRWOR Act, however it is an example of how the more affluent viewed Mexican American mothers and Andrews aided in cementing that oppressive narrative into pop culture. 

• “...gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning, and dignity to most of our lives."   - Bill Clinton, 1996

Along with this Act, 1996 also marks the time when the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.  It generally made other changes to the welfare system which included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements as discussed above.  All of these which were supported by the way Andrews portrayed the women in Mi Vida Loca.