Reproductive Rights & Political Subjectivity by Edith Antonia Crisostomo

Guiding Question

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:16:37 UTC

How does misinformation and freedom of speech impact and harm those who are seeking actual care? What are the laws and actions being put into place currently?

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:17:34 UTC

Inaccurate information can mislead individuals, create confusion, and hinder their ability to make informed decisions about their health. Misinformation and disinformation can come from online platforms, pregnancy centers, and even healthcare providers with biased opinions. This spread of misinformation can lead to delays in seeking care, wrong choice of treatment choice, and can harm an individual’s health. Abortion services are an important medical procedure that preserve a woman’s health or can save their life.

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:25:55 UTC

To address the impact of misinformation on reproductive healthcare, certain states have implemented laws that are aimed to combat false information and educate individuals about their rights in an unbiased manner. The addition of education and awareness campaigns are being conducted to educate individuals about their rights and options regarding reproductive healthcare. Anti-abortion centers known as “crisis pregnancy centers” and “abortion alternatives” are nonprofit organizations with the aim to keep women from having an abortion. There have been efforts put into place to ensure the accuracy of information provided to women when they are seeking abortion services. Advocacy groups are leading educational campaigns and their practices giving women the opportunity to select the choice that best suits their needs after evaluating their options. Organizations are going as far as to provide alternative resources to women seeking more reproductive healthcare options that are not as accessible to them compared to a crisis pregnancy.

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:28:30 UTC

These efforts lead to informed decisions about their reproductive healthcare and creates easier accessibility to safe, legal, and unbiased healthcare services.

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:29:16 UTC

There are legal frameworks and judicial decisions surrounding abortion rights. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, there was a precedent set that established the right to an abortion. However, there has been criticism about the open-ended approach to constitutional interpretation of this case.

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:29:29 UTC

Although abortion is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it can still be protected under the idea that no one’s freedom should be infringed upon. The connection of abortion rights to more specific parts of the Constitution, such as the equal protection clause under the fourteenth amendment which specifies that no state can deny equal protection of the law to any person within its jurisdiction. This can provide a clear guideline that makes it easier to see how abortion can be considered a constitutional right.

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:29:42 UTC

There must be a reevaluation of current abortion rights to create a structured and transparent legal framework that acknowledges the protection of reproductive rights. The current substantive due process framework that allows judges discretion to recognize enumerated rights without clear boundaries must be left behind and the equal protection clause must replace it in order to provide a more stable and consistent legal framework and judicial decision that protects the rights of everyone.

Citations

eacrisos — 2024-05-17 19:35:14 UTC

Human Rights Watch. “Human Rights Crisis: Abortion in the United States after Dobbs.”Links to an external site. Human Rights Watch, (2023).
Millheiser, Ian. “The Uncomfortable Problem with Roe v. Wade.”Links to an external site. Vox, (8/2/2022).
Constitutional Law Center. Abortion and Reproductive Rights Under the ConstitutionLinks to an external site.. Justia, (2023).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Doe v. Bolton
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S (2022)
Kaufman, Risa E. and Katy Mayall. “One Year Later: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Global Context." Human Rights Magazine, 48.4 (2023).
Queen, Bradley. "The First Amendment v. Reproductive Rights: Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Commercial Speech, and Marketplaces of Misinformation."

Abortion and Reproductive rights under the Constitution

krfraust — 2024-05-17 19:51:09 UTC

The constitution is a set of laws that govern the functioning of each state. Under those laws are the amendments that go into depth for citizen's rights. Does the Constitution protect reproductive rights? In 1970, there was a case following a woman wanting to abort a fetus by a licensed physician. She lived in Texas and was denied to have an abortion since her life wasn’t being threatened by the fetus. Roe argues that it was unconstitutional to deny her to get an abortion violating her right to privacy that is being protected by the amendments. The Supreme Court voted that women have the right to abort a pregnancy if they choose to do so, after the case of Roe v Wade women have the “right to privacy” that is being protected under the conditions. The case of Roe v Wade also expressed the due process clause which means government officials first have to go through certain procedures before violating a citizen's protected life, liberty, or property interest. After the Roe v Wade decision, there were other cases with similarities of women being denied their right to abort such as Doe v Bolton.

States Involvement with Reproductive Rights

krfraust — 2024-05-17 19:52:27 UTC

Roughly around the same time as Roe v Wade another case Doe v Dolton which revolves around a woman who was eight weeks pregnant seeking for an abortion. She lived in Georgia that saw abortion as illegal that same as the states of Texas, however it was unconstitutional to ban abortion, although states have found a way to get involved. The Constitutional Law Center states, “Based on its definition of viability, the Court developed a trimester formula to control the right of the state to intervene in a pregnancy.” Other words, during the first trimester states can not get involved with a woman getting an abortion, though during the second through third trimester states can intervene as the fetus would be viable.

krfraust — 2024-05-17 19:56:13 UTC

Following how states can intervene with abortions by denying women termination of their pregnancy depending on how far along the woman is. States have tried to enforce other regulations for women to be allowed to get an abortion, even though after Roe v Wade it is legal and a woman's right to get an abortion. In 1992, in the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey, Planned Parenthood had five regulations for any woman to get an abortion that required the woman to get permission from either her husband or guardian to sign off on the abortion. Planned Parenthood argued that it was unconditionally for a woman to seek permission to get an abortion when it’s their right to privacy. Having women seek permission did violate their right to privacy and the due process law since it is stripping away their life, liberty, or property.

krfraust — 2024-05-17 20:05:56 UTC

The Constitution can protect women's right to have an abortion due to the right to privacy, however, other amendments could still protect abortion such as the ninth amendment. Ian Milhiser, an American journalist, states, “The right to reproductive freedom — including the right to abortion — should be found within the Constitution’s guarantee that no one shall be denied “the equal protection of the laws.”’ This demonstrates that the Constitution guarantees equal protection of laws, including the right to reproductive freedom, including abortion, for all individuals. Banning abortions immediately violates the constitution's equal protection law along with the due process law. Currently, Roe v Wade was trying to get overruled by denying women the right to do what they want with their bodies along with denying any contraceptives to be given to women. These actions have been trying to take place, however, it is violating the Ninth Amendment and women’s rights.

Overturn Roe v Wade

krfraust — 2024-05-20 21:24:38 UTC

Two years ago, the case Roe v Wade was overturned during the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This case causes the overturn of Roe v Wade that has been going on for years, now there are three states that have officially banned abortion. For individuals who take a “pro-life” stance, this ruling was monumental in the political and religious aspects of the nation. In their eyes, it is a step in the “right” direction of protecting the lives of the unborn and ensuring equal opportunity. What these individuals fail to realize is that this overturning also significantly impacts women that either cannot afford to start a family or those whose lives are at risk because of a pregnancy. While not protected by the constitution as bodily autonomy, the right of safety and equal opportunity of survival should still apply to these women who need the care in order to succeed in their own lives.

kdumalo1 — 2024-05-24 08:28:18 UTC

The impact of such information and the broader legal landscape has been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion. Nearly 13 states have enacted or are on the verge of enacting near-total abortion bands. Cases like Zurawski v. State of Texas highlight the dire consequences of these restrictive laws, where five women were denied abortions despite facing severe and dangerous pregnancy complications.

kdumalo1 — 2024-05-24 08:29:37 UTC

Misinformation and freedom of speech significantly impact reproductive rights. One of the biggest examples is through organizations like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). This organization’s political ideology is complex and obscured in its marketing, misleading consumers and hundreds of women about the nature of the services they provide. Through sophisticated use of advertising and SEO techniques, woman are drawn and redirected to crisis pregnancy centers that do not provide the medical services they are searching for. These practices raise concerns about the compelled speech and the limitations of the First Amendment.

kdumalo1 — 2024-05-24 08:30:06 UTC

When false commercial speech is not protected, false and misleading political speech remains protected, creating a legal landscape that is too complex to navigate. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in cases such as NIFLA parallels the issue of whether the state can compel disclosures that interfere with the entity’s intended message. This dynamic affects women who might delay necessary medical care due to confusion, intimidation, or misdirection, potentially resulting in severe health consequences. This interplay between state-mandated disclosures and the speech rights of organizations like NIFLA continues to be an issue in the ongoing debate over reproductive rights and free speech (Queen).

kdumalo1 — 2024-05-24 08:30:39 UTC

These extreme restrictions further disproportionately affect communities that are already facing significant barriers to healthcare, contradicting global public health guidance. Patients face further delays seeking the medical care that they need due to confusion, intimidation, or misdirection and can experience severe health consequences, including premature labor and stillbirth in some cases. With further political institutions allowed to freely false advertise, such as NIFLA, women are put at risk of experiencing these complications and even death in many cases (Kaufman 2023).

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

kdumalo1 — 2024-05-24 08:43:07 UTC

In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion rights are not protected by the constitution and are therefore not a given right to the nation. The judment concurred by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh has allowed states to pass their own abortion laws, prohibiting women from easy access to the care they need in the states they reside in. More specifically, Mississippi’s law banning abortions after 15 weeks of gestation was deemed constitutional because of this ruling. Hundreds of women every week now have to travel across multiple state lines to seek care that could save their lives simply to avoid state punishment, leaving the comfortability of their homes and potentially risking their lives further just by traveling for a procedure. The ruling of Dobbs effectively overturned precedents set by Roe v. Wade, which had previously established and upheld a woman’s right to choose and abortion without excessive government restriction. The uncertainty and inconsistency in abortion access underscores the critical role of this Supreme Court decision in redefining reproductive rights in America.