ジェンダー研究

Special Section

第 26 号

2023 年

Reproductive Justice in the Era of Political Backlash

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe
Lisa C. Ikemoto*

This article focuses on the role of the reproductive justice framework in protecting
access to sexual and reproductive health care in the United States at a moment
when reproductive rights are undeniably in jeopardy. In June 2022, a conservative
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does
not protect the right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. This
article describes and assesses the reproductive health, reproductive rights, andreproductive justice frameworks, the interaction among these frameworks, andthe ideological forces that shape anti-abortion politics and law. In the absence ofa right anchored in the Constitution, reproductive justice advocacy and activity is
becoming more important. This article considers what reproductive justice may
contribute in the post-Roe era.

Keywords
reproductive justice, abortion, eugenics, family values, Roe, Dobbs

I. Introduction
The reproductive justice movement aims
to shape a society in which all people havesafety, resources, and freedom from oppression so that they can make reproductive andsexual decisions based on their values, identity, and hopes. In January 2023, participantsof a reproductive justice summit met to envision “a new future for Reproductive Justice”(SisterSong 2023b). The introduction asserts
D³IRFXVRQ¿JKWLQJDJDLQVWDOORSSUHVVLRQWR
create new policies and systems.” (Forward
Together, Visioning New Futures 2023) Reproductive justice focuses on actual, not assumed reproductive and sexual autonomy,
and on access to care, rather than choice. Reproductive justice advocates use the conceptof human rights rather than rights in U.S. law*Martin Luther King, Jr. Professor, University of California, Davis School of Law

DOI：10.24567/0002003765

7

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe(Ross & Solinger 2017, 10). Advocates and
RUJDQL]HUV GH¿QH UHSURGXFWLYH MXVWLFH DV DQ
approach that centers social change activities,
including community mobilization, to remove
structural barriers to reproductive access.
The reproductive justice framework
emerged in the late twentieth-century
United States as an intervention in boththe anti-abortion movement and the mainstream reproductive rights movement(Ross & Solinger 2017, 56-57; Forward
Together 2005, 5-6). Reproductive justice
DGYRFDWHV LGHQWL¿HG UHSURGXFWLYH MXVWLFH
as the third framework, an addition to thelong recognized reproductive rights andreproductive health approaches used toenable access to reproductive health care
(Forward Together 2005, 1). They positioned reproductive justice as a strategic
response to increasingly obvious limits of
the reproductive rights and health models.
The framework’s components, which include social justice strategies and intersectionality, were not necessarily new. Rather
reproductive justice advocates and coalition participants intentionally launched theframework in 1994 to foster a movement
more inclusive than the mainstream reproductive rights organizations had been andbetter able to mobilize community-based
experience and ingenuity.
From the outset, advocates positioned reproductive justice as complementary to reproductive rights and reproductive health.
Even as it critiqued the existing frameworks’ limits, reproductive justice advocates did not seek to supplant reproductive
rights and health organizations. “All three8

frameworks are imperative; by itself a single one cannot achieve the goal of ending
reproductive oppression.” (Forward Together 2005, 1) Reproductive justice advocates set out to strengthen the overall
movement by expanding two fronts. First,
reproductive justice advocates have sought
WRH[SDQGWKH¿JKWWRSURWHFWDFFHVVWRUHproductive and sexual health care by making it more inclusive, and in doing so, challenge stereotypes used to justify barriers
to access (Silliman, Gerber Fried, Ross &Gutierrez 2004, 15-19). Second, advocateshave worked to situate reproductive justiceas a core goal of the larger social justiceagenda (Forward Together 2005, 7).
This article focuses on the role of the reproductive justice framework in protecting
access to sexual and reproductive healthcare in the United States in the wake ofDobbs. In June 2022, a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
U.S. Constitution does not protect the rightto decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health(hereinafter Dobbs) overturned nearly 50
years of precedent, including Roe v. Wadeand Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey (Dobbs, 2279). This
article considers what reproductive justice
may contribute now that state legislatures
have authority to ban abortion.
While this article focuses reproductive
justice work in the United States, it may
serve as a resource to advocates and scholars in Japan and other countries in theirwork. This analysis focuses on the UnitedStates to emphasize the point that context

ジェンダー研究matters. The particulars of how reproducWLYHMXVWLFHDGYRFDWHVGH¿QHDQGSULRULWL]H
issues, choose strategies, and build coalition varies widely, even within the U.S. The
86VSHFL¿F H[SHULHQFH LOOXVWUDWHV VRPH
core strengths of the reproductive justice
IUDPHZRUN,QSDUWLFXODULWIDFLOLWDWHVÀH[ibility and creativity. Perhaps what mattersmost is that reproductive justice is understood as an intervention that lifts the voicesof those who experience social-politicalmarginalization and keeps the long-termgoal of social justice in mind.
Part II describes the reproductive
health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice frameworks. Part III situates
the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision
to overturn Roe v. Wade with respect to
key constitutional precedent. More speFL¿FDOO\3DUW,,,LQFOXGHVDQDO\VLVRIKRZ
those cases and ideology shaped the legal
and political battle over abortion in the
U.S. The analysis ends with a brief review of Dobbs initial implications. Part
IV assesses the challenges and strengthsof the reproductive justice movement. It
then discusses emerging pathways forreproductive justice, given current legal
uncertainty and rapidly shifting political
JURXQGLQWKH860RUHVSHFL¿FDOO\3DUW
IV is intended to suggest ways that using
reproductive justice may contribute during
times of uncertainty.

第 26 号

2023 年

II. Three Frameworks: Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights,
Reproductive JusticePart II sets out three models for creating
and protecting access to reproductive andsexual health care in the United States. Eachsubpart incorporates selected historical andideological background that have shaped
the battle for sexual and reproductive healthcare access in the U.S. As noted, these models or frameworks are complementary. Not
surprisingly, they often overlap.

A. Reproductive Health
The Reproductive Health framework
is a service delivery model (Forward Together 2005, 2). It focuses on providing
reproductive and sexual health care services. Services include contraception information and care, pregnancy testing andcounseling, abortion information and services, testing and counseling for sexuallytransmissible infections, and other healthcare. Clinics designed to provide these services form the most visible evidence of the
reproductive health model’s success.
Reproductive health advocates also engage in other activities to bolster service
GHOLYHU\$GYRFDF\H൵RUWVHQFRXUDJHRWKHU
health care sites to provide comprehensive
reproductive and sexual health services. For
example, public university students in California successfully campaigned to makemedication abortion available at campusbased student health centers (California
Senate Bill 24 2019). Other activities include
advocacy for laws requiring comprehensive

9Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

sex education in schools, organizations thatprovide resources such as funds, transportation, and overnight accommodations for
SHRSOHVHHNLQJDERUWLRQVDQGH൵RUWVWRLQcrease training and research opportunities
for health professionals in reproductive andsexual health care.
The reproductive health strategy
emerged in the early twentieth century.
Initially, a birth control movement arose toenable women, primarily married women,
to use contraception to control the timing of and number of pregnancies (Ross& Solinger 2017, 32-33; CDC 1999, 1074).
Since then, the meaning of “family planning” has changed in at least three ways.
Family planning now includes a wider
range of health services than contraception. In addition, marital status no longer
GH¿QHV WKH WDUJHW DXGLHQFH IRU IDPLO\planning. In its best form, service delivery assumes that anyone who needs reproductive and sexual health services shouldhave access. Family planning has long
been equated with cis-gender women’s reSURGXFWLYHKHDOWKFDUHDOWKRXJKH൵RUWVWR
adapt service delivery to provide appropriate care to all gender identities have begun.
The reproductive health model has
faced several ideological challenges. Three
are worth noting here. First, conservative
sexual morality characterizes access tocontraception and abortion as a license toengage in illicit sex and thus, undermine
patriarchal, marriage-based family. Versions of Victorian morality persist in 21st
century campaigns to restrict access to reproductive and sexual health services or to

10

limit reproductive and sexual autonomy ofmarginalized communities. For example,
abstinence-only sex education curriculum,
deliberate dissemination of inaccurate andstigmatizing information about contraception and other health services, and pro-natalist narratives that valorize heterosexual,
monogamous married couples all express
this “family values” ideology. The family
values ideology also links opposition to reproductive and sexual health care accessto campaigns against people who are LGBTQ+. (Dowland 2009, 4)Second, pro-life ideology feeds opposition to reproductive health care delivery.
2SSRVLWLRQLQSDUWFRQÀDWHVUHSURGXFWLYH
and sexual health care with abortion. ThisFRQÀDWLRQLVDORJLFDOH[WHQVLRQRIDVHULHV
of gender-based distinctions used to categorize reproductive health care as separate
from and marginal to standard health care.
:RPHQ¶V KHDOWK FDUH KDV EHHQ GH¿QHG DV
an exception or minor specialty to healthcare (See, e.g. Levison, Mendelsohn, Nieman 1995). Often, women’s health carehas been reduced to reproductive healthcare. And reproductive health care, inturn, is often equated solely with abortion.
As a result, family planning and other reproductive health care clinics are seen as
abortion clinics, and thus in the businessof killing “unborn children.” Abortion
exceptionalism characterizes health careregulation (Borgmann 2014). Abortion is
the most regulated medical procedure in
WKH 86 -R൵H   5HJXODWLRQ H[WHQGV
to nearly every aspect of abortion care.
For example, some states have tried to banジェンダー研究use of state funds for clinics that do notprovide abortion care, but that counsel,
UHIHUWRRUDUHD൶OLDWHGZLWKDQDERUWLRQ
provider (Guttmacher Institute State Laws
and Policies 2023). And local governments have denied land use permits for
new family planning clinics (Wells 2019).
Third, eugenic ideology has long shaped
the misuse of reproductive health services.
(Stern 2015) Eugenics gained widespread
traction in the early 20th century U.S. It
UHVXOWHG LQ ODZV MXVWL¿HG DV QHFHVVDU\ WR
improve the U.S. gene pool. Those laws
included federal immigration restrictions,state marriage restrictions, and state laws
authorizing involuntary sterilization of
WKRVHGHHPHGXQ¿WIRUUHSURGXFWLRQ 6WHUQ
2015). Nazi use of eugenics to justify the
Holocaust prompted reconsideration of theso-called science and laws used to carry out
eugenic goals. However, eugenic thinking
has persisted. The most obvious instancesarise from involuntary fertility control ofpeople with disabilities, low-income people of color, and incarcerated people (Ikemoto 2011). Law has not authorized mostimpositions of fertility control, yet those
who imposed forced sterilization or contraception claimed they were protecting
the greater good. (Ikemoto 2011)
The reproductive health model works,
in part, by countering longstanding ideologies that shape opposition to reproductive
and sexual health services. The reproductive health model provides both access tothe actual services and knowledge about
those services. The women’s health movement, formed in the late 1960s (Morgen

第 26 号

2023 年

2002, 3; Silliman et al. 2004, 34-35) andthe legal doctrine of informed consent
formed the core of knowledge-based reproductive health serves. This model assumes that knowledge-based access enables autonomy and empowerment andchallenges paternalism in health care.

B. Reproductive Rights
The Reproductive Rights frameworkuses law to protect access to reproductive
health care services (Forward Together
2005, 2). U.S. culture is particularly legalistic. Law is seen as an important sourceof authority and as a solution for social andmoral problems. In that context, a rightsbased approach is necessary. Reproductive
rights advocates focus on enforcing legal
protections, developing law to increase
DFFHVV DQG IHQGLQJ R൵ ODZV LQWHQGHG WR
curtail reproductive rights. Strategies toprotect reproductive rights include constitutional litigation, litigation under common law and statutory law, and engaging
in the lawmaking and rulemaking processes (Forward Together 2005, 2).
)RU RYHU ¿IW\ \HDUV WKH 86 &RQVWLWXtion has anchored the prevailing understanding of reproductive rights. More
VSHFL¿FDOO\ WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW KDVissued decisions recognizing constitutional protection against laws that authorize involuntary sterilization, ban distribution ofcontraceptives, and ban abortion. In 1942,
the Court held invalid a state eugenics lawthat authorized involuntary sterilization ofpeople convicted for theft. The Court determined that because the law treated two

11

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

forms of theft, and therefore two classes
RI WKLHYHV GL൵HUHQWO\ WKH VWDWH¶V HXJHQLF
sterilization law violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (Skinnerv. Oklahoma). However, in most reproductive liberty cases, the Court has locatedthe right to make a reproductive decision
within the constitutional right of privacy(Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v.
Baird, Roe v. Wade).
The text of the U.S. Constitution does
not expressly mention either the right ofprivacy or reproductive rights. The Court
has, through a series of cases, recognizedthat certain decisions are so personal and
VHOIGH¿QLQJWKDWWKH\DUHQHFHVVDU\WRWKH
concept of individual liberty that the express rights describe. The implied right ofprivacy, therefore, encompasses protection
IRU GHFLVLRQV WKH &RXUW ¿QGV DUH GHHSO\rooted in the nation’s history and traditions
and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The privacy cases have recognized parental autonomy (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Meyer v. Nebraska), the right to marry(Zablocki v. Redhail, Loving v. Virgina),
the right to use contraception (Griswold,
Eisenstadt), the right to sexual intimacy
in private spaces (Lawrence v. Texas), anduntil 2022, the right to decide whether toterminate a pregnancy (Roe v. Wade).
Constitutional rights protect against
substantial government interference. Further, the U.S. Constitution confers only
negative rights. Thus, government has no
obligation to ensure that each individual
has the resources necessary to exercise
their rights. The Court has used a broad

12

concept of negative rights in abortion
rights cases. In 1977, Congress barred useof federal Medicaid funding for abortion,with narrow exceptions (Hyde Amendment). The Court used the concept ofnegative rights to determine that the Hyde
Amendment does not interfere with theabortion right because the Constitution
does not obligate the government to fundabortion services. (Harris v. McRae). The
Court rejected the argument that the funding ban itself interfered with the abortionULJKW7KH&RXUW¶VGHFLVLRQKDVH൵HFWLYHO\prevented many low-income people fromobtaining abortions. Reproductive rights
advocates have so far been unable to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
Shortly after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, anti-abortion advocates began to push abortion restrictions
through state legislatures. The same ideologies used against reproductive health activities have shaped abortion restrictions.
Legislators voting for bills that requireparental consent for minors and spousal
QRWL¿FDWLRQ IRU PDUULHG ZRPHQ VHHNLQJ
abortion have used family values narraWLYHVWRMXVWLI\WKHODZV,QWKHVWKH
idea of fetal personhood gained politicalLQÀXHQFH 3UR3XEOLFD $QWLDERUWLRQ
advocates supporting abortion restrictions
described pregnancy as a potential materQDOIHWDO FRQÀLFW DQG DERUWLRQ DV PXUGHU
In the 1990s, old-fashioned paternalism
emerged as an important narrative in antiDERUWLRQ OHJLVODWLRQ /DZV ZHUH MXVWL¿HG
either as necessary to protect women fromthemselves or from abortion providers

ジェンダー研究

6LHJHO   7KHVH ³ZRPHQSURWHFWLYH´laws required doctors to disclose oftenfalse risks of abortion, to show the fetal ultrasound to patients, and to require
waiting periods after disclosure. Somelaws falsely portray abortion as very dangerous to justify imposing unnecessary,
sometimes impossible requirements on
doctors and clinics. These laws are called“targeted regulation of abortion providers” or TRAP laws. They include hospital
admitting privilege requirements for clinic
doctors and requirements that clinics meet
out-patient surgical center standards. Antiabortion advocates have even twisted eugenics ideology against abortion rights.
Some anti-abortion advocates argue thatabortion is a eugenics tool used against
Black communities.
Reproductive rights advocates have
responded by opposing restrictive abortion bills and by challenging the restrictions as constitutional violations. In somestates, reproductive rights advocates havestrengthened protection for reproductive
rights through state constitutional law.
For example, in November 2022, California voters passed a ballot initiative thatamends the state constitution. The amendment adds express protection of reproductive rights (California Proposition 1).
Reproductive rights organizations havealso proposed and supported state legislation that protects access to and resources
for reproductive health care (For example,
New Jersey 2021; Connecticut 2022).
Reproductive rights advocates work on
issues beyond abortion. For example, in

第 26 号

2023 年

the 1970s, advocates worked to secure federal funding for family planning clinics,
and litigated to implement informed consent requirements to protect patients fromeugenic uses of contraception and sterilization (Relf v. Weinberger). Women’s
health and reproductive rights advocatespushed for FDA approval of emergency
contraception, as well as medication abortion. They continue to push for expanded
access to those services.
The reproductive rights and reproductive health models have been intertwinedsince the mid-20th century. The most obvious evidence of this is that reproductive
health providers such as Planned Parenthood and Whole Women’s Health have
VHUYHGDVSODLQWL൵VLQFRQVWLWXWLRQDOFKDOlenges to abortion laws. The complementary nature of the reproductive rights andreproductive health models also points toa key reason the reproductive rights approach has achieved some successes: active support from the medical and publichealth professions.
In the mid-19th century, the medical
profession actively lobbied state legislatures to enact abortion bans. The resulting
laws typically contained a narrow exception “for the purpose of saving the life of
WKHPRWKHU´ 0RKU/XNHU32-33; see e.g. Texas Penal Code). These
were called “therapeutic abortions,” andwere legal only if performed by doctors.
Historians have shown that the nascent
medical profession campaigned for abortion bans to achieve exclusive authority over abortion against midwives (Mohr13

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe1979). Yet, from the mid-20th century, themedical profession changed its position onabortion law (Greenhouse & Siegel 35). By
then, the medical profession had achieved
its initial goal -- law required that whenabortions were legally permissible, only
doctors could perform them. The medical
profession and public health experts have
DOVR UHFRJQL]HG WKH KDUPIXO H൵HFWV RI
abortion bans on pregnant women. Abortion bans did not stop women from getting
abortions, but it prevented many from accessing safe abortions. In the pre-Roe era,
many women obtained abortions in unsafe
conditions and from untrained abortionists, often resulting in injury and death.
Yet law prevented doctors from protecting
their patients by providing safe abortions.
Abortion bans harmed medical professionals as well as people seeking abortion care.
Laws criminalizing abortion put doctors
in legal jeopardy. In addition, bans restrict
the scope of medical practice and infringe
on professional autonomy to determine
standard of care.

C. Reproductive JusticeThe reproductive justice framework approach uses human rights as a foundation
for a robust understanding of reproductive
and sexual freedom and, access to careregardless of income. Advocates target
structural barriers that sustain systems of
RSSUHVVLRQ$GYRFDWHVKDYHGH¿QHGUHSURductive justice as “the complete physical,
mental, spiritual, political, economic, andsocial well-being of women and girls,” thatwill be achieved “when women and girls

14

have the economic, social and politicalpower and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families andour communities in all areas of our lives”(Forward Together 2005, 1).
The reproductive justice framework
emerged, in part, as a response to the limits of the reproductive rights model. Fourlimits are relevant to this analysis. First,
focusing on legal rights constrains bothissue framing and potential strategies toexisting law. For example, the concept ofnegative rights assumes the government
has no responsibility when poor people
FDQQRWD൵RUGWRH[HUFLVHWKHLUULJKWV7KH
limits of law itself, then, prevents constitutional litigation from addressing the root
causes of that particular problem, including structural racism. Second, reproductive rights advocates have long seen reproductive rights as necessary to achieve
gender equality, yet the Court’s majority
has maintained the right of privacy andequal protection as separate, rather thanconnected doctrines. This has limited theforce of reproductive rights by making thegoal of gender equality secondary in constitutional analysis. Third, neoliberalism
JDLQHG LQÀXHQFH LQ WKH V DQG V
As a result, the understanding of individual rights began to align with a marketbased understanding of liberty. This occurred in general political discourse andin law. Fourth, abortion became so politiFL]HGWKDWH[WUHPLVWSRSXOLVPKDVD൵HFWHG
the process and content of legislation.
The reproductive justice framework

ジェンダー研究also responded to limitations within themainstream reproductive rights movement. Generally, in the late 20th century,
leadership in the most well-resourced andLQÀXHQWLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQV ZDV OHVV GLYHUVH
than the U.S. population. Those organi]DWLRQVVHWSULRULWLHVWKDWODUJHO\UHÀHFWHG
the views and experience of white, middle class and more privileged women(Browner 2015, 10). Black women disproportionately use abortion, as comparedto other racial groups. Yet, reproductive
rights advocacy did not always address the
ZD\VLQZKLFKUDFLVPDQGSRYHUW\D൵HFWHG
abortion decisions and access to care. In
addition, the movement’s substantial focus
on abortion overlooked the many ways inwhich women of color, low-income women, LGBTQ+ communities experienced reproductive control (Ross & Solinger 2017,
43-54). For example, women of color, especially low-income women of color, havebeen more likely to experience coercion
to use long-acting reversible contraception or sterilization, to be prosecuted for
drug use during pregnancy, or to receive a
court-ordered cesarean delivery (Ikemoto    
LGBTQ+ people have been more likely
than cis-gender people to be denied care,
IDFHGLVFULPLQDWLRQE\SURYLGHUVDQGVWD൵
or receive care based on cis-gender care
VWDQGDUGV :LQJR'DZVRQ 
Reproductive justice advocates articulated the framework as an intentional strategic response at a time when social conservatism and neoliberalism were gainingLQÀXHQFH vis a vis liberalism. The repro-

第 26 号

2023 年

ductive rights and health movements arosefrom liberalism during the civil rights era.
The abortion wars have produced a simplistic oppositional discourse that characterizes reproductive rights and healthsupporters as pro-choice and advocatesagainst abortion as pro-life. Reproductive justice advocates aligned the framework with other progressive social justice
PRYHPHQWVWRR൵HUQRWVLPSO\RSSRVLWLRQto prevailing conservatisms, but also an alternative to the apparent diachronic character of the abortion debate in the U.S. It
has sought to sidestep that discourse by
R൵HULQJ DOWHUQDWLYH YDOXHV DQG YLVLRQV RI
society, and richer, more expansive, andengaged ways of seeking change.
The reproductive justice framework uses
several methodologies or strategies. Three
are particularly generative. In addition, theVWUDWHJLHV RIWHQ UHYHDO VLJQL¿FDQW FRQQHFtion to other social justice issues as well as
to reproductive health and rights organizations. The connections foster coalition work.
First, reproductive justice uses a method
called intersectionality. Critical race feminism, a legal theory, also uses intersecWLRQDOLW\ &UHQVKDZ 7KHFRQFHSWRI
intersectionality acknowledges that formsof subordination, such as racism or white
supremacy, patriarchy, racist nationalism, heterosexism and homophobia, rigid
binary gender identity norms, disability
exclusion, poverty, are not separate andparallel categories. They form matricesthat stratify power (Hill Collins 2000). Intersections among these oppressions do not
produce separable components that are ad-

15

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

ditive in impact. Rather they can produce
stereotypes, exclusions, and norms that
DUHVSHFL¿FWRLGHQWLWLHVFRQVWUXFWHGDWWKH
intersections. As a result, Asian womenin the U.S. face forms of subordination
shaped by racism, patriarchy, xenophobia
and white nationalism that are particular to
Asian women (Forward Together 2005, 4;
Silliman et al., 2004, 14-15). Intersectional
analysis examines the ways that forms ofsubordination interact to maintain structures of inequality. The resulting structuresof inequality, in turn, maintain barriers to
reproductive and sexual freedom.
Second, the reproductive justice approach looks at the root causes of social
injustice. Thus, analysis requires identifying the role of structural inequality
and exclusionary cultural norms (Ross &Solinger 2017, 56). Structural inequality is
maintained by social norms so deeply embedded that they mask racism, patriarchy,
poverty, nativism, exclusion of people withdisabilities, and marginalization of LGBTQ+ people from social and economic
life. Making structural inequality visible
H[SRVHV KRZ VXERUGLQDWLQJ QRUPV D൵HFW
educational and employment opportunities, access to safe housing and neighborhoods, policing, environmental toxin exSRVXUH7KRVHLQHTXDOLWLHVLQWXUQD൵HFW
health and access to health care, including reproductive and sexual health care.
Root causes analyses enables reproductive
justice advocates to identify exactly how
structural inequalities function as barriers
to sexual and reproductive health access.
Third, the reproductive justice model

16

relies on local knowledge to inform root
causes analyses, and community organizing to frame issues, set priorities, anddevelop campaigns for change (Silliman etDO 7KHLVVXHVLGHQWL¿HGE\OLYHG
H[SHULHQFH DUH QRW FUDIWHG WR ¿W H[LVWLQJlaw or to appeal to law and policy makers. Rather they reveal the complicationsof structural and legal barriers. Community-based organizations and their allies
can amplify the voices of people to “speak
truth to power.”

III. From Roe to Dobbs
Part III provides legal background for
the June 2022 Dobbs decision. More speFL¿FDOO\WKLVSDUWEULHÀ\GHVFULEHVRoe v.
Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (hereinafter Casey), two key cases recognizing theabortion right. The analysis then sets out
the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, Dobbs
v. Jackson Women’s Health. In Dobbs, theconservative majority overturned Roe andCasey. Part III then discusses some of theideological and legal implications of thatdecision in the United States.

A. The Right to Decide
In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Roe v. Wade. At issue
was a Texas ban on abortion. That law
dated back to the mid-nineteenth century
period in which the medical profession
encouraged states to criminalize abortion.
The court recognized that the constitutional right of privacy protects the abortion

ジェンダー研究

decision -- the right to decide whether or
not to terminate a pregnancy. Roe was one
in a series of cases in which the Supreme&RXUWGH¿QHGWKHULJKWRISULYDF\,QRoe,
the Court aligned the abortion decision
with prior decisions recognizing the rightto access contraception, the right to marry,and parental rights.
Most importantly, the Court cast theright to decide as a fundamental right, themost strongly protected level of individual
rights. As a fundamental right, laws interfering with the right would undergo “strict
scrutiny,” which requires the state to esWDEOLVK D FRPSHOOLQJ  RU  VWURQJ MXVWL¿FDWLRQ7H[DVR൵HUHGWKUHHMXVWL¿FDWLRQV7KH
Court rejected the argument that abortionbans deter “illicit sexual conduct,” as a“Victorian social concern.” The court recRJQL]HG WKH MXVWL¿FDWLRQV RU LQWHUHVWV LQ
protecting the woman’s health by ensuring the safety of abortion and protecting
prenatal life. The court determined thatthe state’s interest in protecting women’s
health became compelling from the beginning of the second trimester, and the interest in protecting prenatal life became compelling from “viability,” the point at which
a fetus could survive outside the womb.
The Court rejected the argument that a fetus is a person throughout pregnancy, andheld that the Texas law was invalid.
Some saw Roe v. Wade as a foundation
for a broader claim of reproductive rights.
Those advocates asserted that Roe protected women’s bodily autonomy -- the rightto control one’s own body. Others, including pro-choice advocates, have criticized

第 26 号

2023 年

the Court’s analysis, even as they fought
to sustain its holding. One criticism worth
noting is that the constitutional analysis
medicalizes the personal decision by focusing on the woman’s body and fetal development, rather than on how pregnancy and
SDUHQWKRRGZLOOD൵HFWWKHZRPDQ¶VDELOLW\WRGH¿QHKHUOLIH¶VFRXUVHHVSHFLDOO\LQD
VRFLHW\ VWUDWL¿HG E\ SDWULDUFK\ UDFLVP
and other forms of subordination (Siegel
1992). By describing abortion only as a
medical procedure, the court maintained
medical providers as gatekeepers. While
Roe has enabled more women to complete
higher education, develop careers, become
JRYHUQPHQW R൶FLDOV DQG OHDGHUV VDIHO\raise their existing children, it has also
perpetuated gender essentialism.
Between 1973 and 1992, state legislatures enacted laws restricting access toabortion before viability, without directly
banning access. Anti-abortion advocates’
main strategy was to chip away at the rightto decide. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided a case called Planned Parenthoodof Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
,Q WKDW FDVH WKH &RXUW D൶UPHG WKH FRUH
principle of Roe v. Wade. However, theCourt rejected the trimester analysis andweakened constitutional protection of theright to decide. The new constitutional
standard permitted regulation before viability unless the restriction imposed an“undue burden” on the right to decide. As
in Roe, states could ban abortion from viability except when necessary to protect
the woman’s life. The weaker constitutional standard empowered legislatures to17

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

regulate abortion during early pregnancy
ZLWKPRUHLQWUXVLYHODZVMXVWL¿HGDVQHFessary to protect women and prenatal life.
Restrictions included long waiting periods, requirements that pregnant women be
shown ultrasound images of the fetus or
receive medically inaccurate information,and rules aimed at clinics and doctors thatwere so expensive or impossible to implement that clinics had to close.
The Casey decision spurred legislationthat relied on old patriarchal images ofwomen in need of protection. It encouraged anti-abortion advocates to produce
inaccurate information that exaggerated
the risks of abortion. For example, somelaws claimed that abortion causes postabortion regret and depression, increases
the risk of breast cancer, and causes fetal
pain. The false risks played into a new
narrative that cast the “abortion industry” -- family planning clinics and abortion providers -- as a threat to vulnerable
women and “unborn children.” This narUDWLYH LGHQWL¿HV DERUWLRQ DV VRPHWKLQJ
that threatens families and even, minority
communities. This new narrative spins together traditional patriarchy, fetal personhood and family values, and it claims the
mantle of anti-eugenics.

B. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s HealthOrganization
In 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg died. Then-President
Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett toreplace Justice Ginsburg. Since October
26, 2020, the Supreme Court has had six

18very conservative justices who were skeptical of the right to decide and the right ofprivacy. Three liberal justices whose judicial opinions recognized the right of privacy, including the right to abortion, formeda minority.
On June 24, 2022, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court overturned
Roe v. Wade in a case called Dobbs v.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
As a result, the U.S. Constitution no longer protects the right to decide whether or
not to terminate a pregnancy. The decision
substantially reduces the scope of the rightof privacy and eliminates a core elementof legal protection for reproductive rights.
The Dobbs decision to overturn RoeUHÀHFWV WKUHH VWUDQGV RI FRQVHUYDWLVP LQ
American politics. The most obvious is
VRFLDO FRQVHUYDWLVP 0RUH VSHFL¿FDOO\FRQVHUYDWLYH &KULVWLDQLW\ LQÀXHQFHG WKH
Dobbs decision. That perspective prioritizes the concept of fetal interests overthe pregnant person’s interests and wellbeing. It relies on an assumption that abortion undermines motherhood. Second, theDobbsGHFLVLRQUHÀHFWVQHROLEHUDOLVP1Holiberalism is a free-market ideology thatGH¿QHV ³SHUVRQDO UHVSRQVLELOLW\´ ZLWKRXW
attention to social reality. It claims that individuals, not the government, should havethe responsibility to obtain health care forthemselves, including reproductive health
FDUH %URZQHU 7KHWKLUGVWUDQG
of conservatism in the Dobbs decision isa version of federalism that favors staterights over federal government authority.
The Dobbs decision allows states to ban,

ジェンダー研究regulate, or protect abortion access withlittle accountability to constitutional principles. In that respect, the Dobbs holding
is a victory for a form of federalism thatfavors robust states’ rights. Yet, overturning Dobbs leaves abortion access to thecurrent excesses of electoral politics. The
content of abortion laws depends more directly on prevailing ideology. In addition,
by removing constitutional protection, theCourt removed a tool for holding elected
R൶FLDOVDFFRXQWDEOHWRWKHLUFRQVWLWXHQWV/HJLVODWXUHV WKDW SDQGHU WR DQ LQÀXHQWLDO
minority view can enact abortion laws thatmost state residents abhor. Many claim
the Dobbs decisions is also a victory for
populism. And yet, now that abortion opponents have achieved the goal of overturning Roe, it may become apparent thatRUGLQDU\ SHRSOH FDQQRW D൵RUG WKH PDQ\costs of actually banning abortion.
The United States is now divided. As of
February 2023, twelve states have banned
DERUWLRQ DQG WZR KDYH H൵HFWLYHO\ PDGH
abortion unavailable (Guttmacher InstituteInteractive Map February 2023). Abortion
EDQV WKDW DSSO\ HDUO\ LQ SUHJQDQF\ H൵HFtively block nearly all abortion. People canonly obtain abortion services by traveling tostates where abortion is legal or by proving
WKDW WKH\ ¿W LQWR QDUURZ VWDWXWRU\ H[FHStions. Abortion bans disproportionately
impact low-income people who cannot afford to travel. Because structural inequality based on race, disability, gender identity, immigration status, and other forms
RI VXERUGLQDWLRQ D൵HFW DFFHVV WR ZHDOWK
members of those groups on more likely to

第 26 号

2023 年

lack the resources.
In contrast, seventeen states and theDistrict of Columbia currently protectabortion rights. Protections include constitutional provisions and statutes (Guttmacher Institute Abortion Policy February 2023). Several states have recently
expanded legal protection for abortion andother reproductive health services. SomeVWDWHVDUHDOVRDOORFDWLQJPRUH¿QDQFLDOUHsources for both state residents and people
traveling in-state to obtain abortions. The
VLWXDWLRQZLOOUHPDLQÀXLGIRU\HDUV,QHIfect, the U.S. is in a civil war that is, at its
core, a culture war.

C. Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe has already prompted change.
Some impacts were immediate and predictable -- abortion bans and substantial
restrictions. In addition, Dobbs has created a great deal of fear and uncertainty.
This discussion provides a few examples
to illustrate how fear produced by recent
DERUWLRQ UHVWULFWLRQV KDV D൵HFWHG KHDOWK
care and research, and the role that ideology plays in fostering fear and uncertainty.
The impact of the Dobbs decision on
health care was almost immediate. Many
doctors have hesitated to provide standard care because they fear accusation andprosecution for violating an abortion law.
Some statutes that criminalize abortion
have narrow exceptions that permit abortions when necessary to save the woman’slife in a medical emergency. For example,a Missouri abortion law makes it a crime19Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

to anyone who performs an abortion inany circumstances “except medical emerJHQF\´7KHVWDWXWHGH¿QHV³PHGLFDOHPHUgency” as a circumstance where failure toprovide an abortion would cause, “serious
risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function”(Missouri Stat.). Because the statutory language is extreme and vague, it has madesome doctors hesitate not only to provide
abortions that jeopardize the woman’s life,
but also miscarriage care, and treatment forectopic pregnancy. Abortion laws and political volatility squeeze providers between
risk of criminal prosecution and their professional duty to provide good care.
Some state abortion laws include language that creates uncertainty about thelegality of other health procedures. For
example, statements that “life begins atconception” raise questions about in vitro
fertilization procedures (See, Ariz. SB
1457). Fertility clinics in abortion-hostile
states have considered relocation to states
without fetal personhood laws. The samelanguage has also prompted uncertainty
about biomedical research that uses humanin vitro embryos, such as human embryonic stem cell research or fertility research.
Early 21st century abortion rights opponents began to turn eugenics concernsand disability rights views against abortion rights. For example, anti-abortion
publicity campaigns placed billboards in
predominantly Black neighborhoods that
asserted that abortion was a form of racial
eugenics. A few states enacted laws that
restrict abortion based on sex selection.

20

Advocacy for laws banning sex selection
often combined anti-Asian stereotypes andclaims that the restrictions were necessary
to prevent gender-based eugenics in Asian
communities. In a 2019 Supreme Court
case, Justice Thomas wrote a concurring
opinion that described abortion as a tool ofeugenics. Thomas’ opinion mis-states thehistory of eugenics in the U.S. Eugenicists
have used forced sterilization, not abortion as a tool of oppression (Roberts 2019).
Thomas’ opinion failed to acknowledge
the role of structural racism and ableism
as a factor in abortion rates and the lack ofevidence for male preference in U.S. abortion. Yet, in Dobbs, the Court’s opinion
validated the misstatement by recognizing“the prevention of discrimination on thebasis of race, sex, or disability” as a valid
MXVWL¿FDWLRQIRUUHVWULFWLQJDERUWLRQDFFHVV'REEV 
The Dobbs decision has emboldenedsocial conservatives. For social conservatives, overturning Roe was a step toward
the larger goal of establishing social control over sex, gender roles, gender identity,
within a white Christian nationalist vision.
In the wake of Dobbs, social conservatives
KDYHVWHSSHGXSDERUWLRQEDQVDQGH൵RUWV
that target people who are transgender.
Like early abortion laws after 1973, manyanti-trans laws aim at minors. For example, many bills would prohibit doctors
IURP SURYLGLQJ JHQGHUD൶UPLQJ FDUH IRUtransgender youth. Patriarchy and racismin the U.S. have always relied on biological essentialism. The LGBTQ+ activists,
anti-racist organizations, and the disability

ジェンダー研究rights movement all challenge biologicalessentialism. In the backlash against civilrights, conservative family values ideology has weaponized biological essentialism
to attack trans and queer identity.

IV. Reproductive Justice in the PostDobbs Era
Part IV provides a brief assessment of
the reproductive justice movement’s demonstrated strengths and challenges in the
post-Dobbs era. Part IV then discusses
a few ways that the reproductive justice
IUDPHZRUNFDQFRQWULEXWHWRUHFRQ¿JXULQJthe movement to expand access to comprehensive reproductive and sexual healthcare in the U.S.

A. Demonstrated Strengths of the
Reproductive Justice Movement
Throughout the movement to expand
access to reproductive and sexual healthcare, “Reproductive justice” is now recognized. It has become a widely used term in
the broader movement for reproductive andsexual health, in civil rights, social justice,and national policy. Some use “reproductive justice” as a synonym for reproductive rights, or vice versa. Not all who use“reproductive justice” are familiar withits methodologies. However, widespreaduse of “reproductive justice” demonstrates
the movement’s impact. Young adults andyouth are particularly likely to recognize
and embrace reproductive justice goals
and strategies.
The reproductive justice movement has

第 26 号

2023 年VLJQL¿FDQWO\ LPSDFWHG UHSURGXFWLYH ULJKWVand reproductive health work. For example, some reproductive rights and healthorganizations now incorporate intersectionality analyses. They work in coalition
with reproductive justice organizations toorganize communities and achieve law andpolicy change (See, e.g. Forward Together
Strong Families New Mexico). And some
reproductive rights and health organizations
have become more conscious about the need
WRGLYHUVLI\VWD൵DQGOHDGHUVKLSLQRUGHUWR
bring a wider range of experiences and voices to their understanding of access issues.
The reproductive justice movement has
DOVR D൵HFWHG RWKHU VRFLDO MXVWLFH ZRUN
Other social justice agendas now recognize reproductive justice as a core aspectof social justice. (See, e.g. Hernandez-Simmons 2022). Thus, the reproductive justice
PRYHPHQWKDVH[SDQGHGWKHGH¿QLWLRQRI
social justice. In turn, reproductive justice¿QGV V\QHUJ\ ZLWK JRDOV RI RWKHU VRFLDO
justice work. For example, reproductive
justice organizers have advocated against
siting sources of environmental toxins in
FRPPXQLWLHVRIFRORUEHFDXVHRIH൵HFWVRQ
reproductive health.
Recognizing mutuality of goals for social and policy change provides a basis forcommunity and organizational alliance.
For example, in response to the leaked andR൶FLDODobbs opinions, some mainstream
environmental protection organizations
spoke out against overturning Roe andexpressed support for reproductive justiceorganizations. “NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] stands with organiza-

21

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

tions such as In Our Own Voice, National$VLDQ3DFL¿F$PHULFDQ:RPHQ¶V)RUXPNational Birth Equity Collaborative, National Latina Institute for Reproductive
Justice, Sister Song, and many others to
defend the reproductive rights of all women and people who give birth to access safe
reproductive health care.” (Shahyd 2022).

B. Challenges for Reproductive Justice after Roe
The reproductive justice movement
faces several challenges in the post-Roe
era. Perhaps most immediately, the Dobbs
decision shifted attention to abortion andabortion rights. Reproductive justice adYRFDWHV KDYH IRXJKW DJDLQVW FRQÀDWLQJ
reproductive rights with abortion. They
have sought to expand the issues on the reproductive and sexual health agenda. The
implications of Dobbs shows that abortion
EDQV D൵HFW RWKHU KHDOWK FDUH LVVXHV <HW
the focus on Dobbs may result in less attention to and fewer resources for other reproductive and sexual health access issues.
In addition, the rapid implementation ofstate laws that ban or substantially restrict
abortion services creates high demand forshort term measures to reduce harms thoselaws cause. These measures include using
litigation to challenge new abortion law,
expanding reproductive health services instates where abortion remains legal, raising awareness of how abortion restrictions
exacerbate racial, wealth, and other formsof subordination, and enacting greater legal protection of reproductive rights inabortion-rights states. These measures are

22

necessary and align with reproductive justice goals. However, the all-out response to
the immediate emergency that Dobbs hascreated may undermine the reproductive
MXVWLFH PRYHPHQW¶V H൵RUWV WR H൵HFW ORQJ
term social change.
The reproductive justice movement may
also face a capacity shortage. Reproductive justice advocates work simultaneously
on reproductive and sexual health care access, LGBTQ inclusion, and the ways thatVWUXFWXUDOLQHTXDOLW\D൵HFWVWKRVHLVVXHV,Q
part, this arises from intersectionality analysis. It also responds to how family values
ideology links condemnation of reproductive health care access and gender identity
issues. In addition, as reproductive justicehas succeeded in expanding alliances withother social justice organizations, includingBlack Lives Matter, it has also expanded its
scope of work. Dobbs has made all of theseissues more pressing, in part, by emboldening social, states’ rights, and neoliberalconservatives to push harder. The greater
demand on reproductive justice advocates
may stretch their individual, organizationDODQG¿QDQFLDOFDSDFLW\
A fourth challenge the reproductive
justice movement may face arises fromthe new civil war. Dobbs, as mentioned,
has enabled states to enact laws that banor substantially restrict abortion access.
Abortion-hostile states have already begun to do just that. Dobbs has also prompted abortion rights-states to strengthen
protection for reproductive rights andincrease resources for reproductive andsexual health services. This is increasingジェンダー研究the range of experiences that reproductive
justice organizers seek to recognize andamplify. This exacerbates the possibility
that the movement may face a capacity
VKRUWDJH ,W PD\ DOVR PDNH LW GL൶FXOW WR
set priorities. Abortion bans increase marginalization and urgency, and they add tothe gaps in access that already exist.

C. Going forward
This discussion does not predict what
will happen in the battle for reproductive
justice. Nor does it propose next steps or
VSHFL¿FVWUDWHJLHV5DWKHUWKLVGLVFXVVLRQ
highlights what the reproductive justicemodel can contribute no matter how thebattle goes. It does assume, based on forecasts by reproductive rights and justice advocates, that the next phase of the battle
will take decades.
The reproductive justice strategies thisarticle discusses make the movement
well-equipped to build alliances and coalition-based campaigns. Intersectionality
analysis has already facilitated creation oforganizations such as SisterSong, National
Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice,
DQG WKH 1DWLRQDO $VLDQ 3DFL¿F $PHULFDQWomen’s Forum. Root causes analyses
have prompted organizations like Asian
Communities for Reproductive Justice toexpand their agendas and mission. That
organization is now called Forward Together. Forward Together’s mission has
expanded beyond reproductive justice.
Many organizations, including In Our
Own Voice, seek to amplify and support
local and state reproductive justice com-

第 26 号

2023 年

munity organizations. These organizations
and others work in coalition, and increasingly ally with other social justice, rights,
and health organizations.
Reproductive justice organizations have
EHHQSDUWLFXODUO\H൵HFWLYHDWFRQWULEXWLQJ
previously unheard voices to public discourse. Abortion-opponents had so successfully stigmatized abortion that public
discourse consisted largely of politicalrhetoric. Recently, people have shared theirabortion experiences publicly in order tode-stigmatize abortion. The initial wave of
personal accounts consisted primarily ofwhite women. Many of those accounts explained the abortion decision as a response
to exceptional circumstances, including
pregnancy from rape and pregnancy as a
VLJQL¿FDQWKHDOWKULVN7KHVHVWRULHVEHJDQto break the silence and stigma of abortion.
At the same time, some also reinforced theidea that only exceptional circumstances
justify abortion.
Reproductive justice organizations haveenabled people marginalized by racial
subordination, poverty, disability, sexual
orientation and gender identity, and immigration status to add their experiences.
Including their stories in public discourse
KDV KDG VHYHUDO H൵HFWV 7KHLU VWRULHV SXWboth the need for and the barriers to reproductive and sexual health care accessinto context. That helps shift the discussion from the abstractions of politicalrhetoric and ideology to the real needs ofindividuals. The stories counter abortion
opponents’ claim that abortion is a racial
eugenic tool. The personal accounts show

23

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roethat structural inequality and its impacts
often put Black women in situations thatmake abortion the most reasonable decision they can make in their circumstances.
In other words, the stories show that abortion is not a stand-alone issue, but one thatinteracts with other oppressions. Third,
adding personal accounts about abortion
helps to de-stigmatize and to normalizeabortion as a common experience. This, inturn, contributes to culture change.
Reproductive justice work aims at otheraspects of culture change, as well. Some
organizations, including Black Women for
Wellness, enable community members toclarify and expand on the value of theirown lived experiences (Black Women
for Wellness). Culture change strategies
highlight images, histories, and narratives
that challenge narrow norms about family, motherhood, and gender roles. Culture change activities also channel culturechange through traditional institutions.
For example, Law Students for Reproductive Justice, now If/When/How, created alaw schools project to incentivize adding
reproductive justice curriculum in higher
education (If/When/How) Other organizations work alongside civil rights organizations on cross-cutting issues, including
voting rights.
The reproductive justice strategies haveenabled community and organizational
participants to be creative and nimble.
There is no one type of reproductive justice organization. There are many. And
they use intersectionality, root causes
analysis, and community-based activi-

24

ties in a wide variety of ways. In otherwords, the reproductive justice frameworkis generative. That makes it well-suited towork pro-actively. The reproductive rights
movement was hampered, in the past, by alargely reactive, defensive response to anti-abortion laws and activities. It is likelythat reproductive justice strategies contributed to the reproductive rights movement’s shift to proactive work.
)LQDOO\ WKH GH¿QLWLRQ RI UHSURGXFWLYH
justice suggests pathways forward. Reproductive justice has embraced human rights
as a conceptual foundation for achieving
its goals. Human rights remain distinct
from the understanding of individual
rights in the U.S.; human rights include
D൶UPDWLYH ULJKWV 1RU KDV QHROLEHUDOLVP
eroded the concept of human rights to procedural rights. The reproductive justice
movement’s express embrace of humanrights may facilitate alliance across borders with, for example, the Green Wave in
Latin America (Chang, Mehta and Kenin
July 7, 2022), or the nascent reproductive
justice activities in Japan.

V. Conclusion
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has undermined the status and health of women,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, andqueer people. Dobbs opened the door tostate control over pregnancy. It has also
spurred many states to enact laws that regulate sexual intimacy and gender roles in
RWKHUZD\V)RUH[DPSOHLQWKH¿UVW\HDUジェンダー研究after Dobbs, conservative legislatures have
HQDFWHG EDQV RQ DFFHVV WR JHQGHUD൶UPing care for people who are transgender.
No doubt, other types of bans will follow.
Many of these laws are not enforceable.
But they show that abortion is not a standalone issue. Abortion restrictions are partof a matrix of social and legal rules thatmaintain inequality and privilege. And
they do so in disregard of the fact that people already marginalized by racism, poverty, immigration status, and other structures of subordination will experience thegreatest harms.
In terms of advocacy for reproductive
health access, the Dobbs decision positions the U.S. with countries that do nothave constitutional protection for abortion
rights. In that setting, the reproductive justice framework becomes more important.
In the U.S., women of color organizations
have used the reproductive justice approachto leverage social change and change inthe reproductive health and rights movement. Reproductive justice leaders havenot asserted that the reproductive justiceframework is a totalizing theory. Rather,
they have described it as a complementary approach. While this has not occurred
without tension within the movement, the“complementary” approach has expanded
the advocacy base and its strategies. Those
expansions will be critical in the ideological civil war now taking place in the U.S.
This article discusses three strategies
that reproductive justice advocates use.
These strategies are adaptable and form
only a starting point for reproductive

第 26 号

2023 年

justice-based advocacy. Intersectionality
analysis requires identifying key formsof subordination and the communities
impacted by them. Assessing how social,
institutional, and governmental authorities
interact with marginalized communities
in ways that produce greater reproductive control and harm requires experiential
knowledge from community members. It
also directly engages with ideologies used
to naturalize and justify control. Intersectionality analysis produces a more contextualized and nuanced understanding of theways that social norms and formal rules
divide us and respect for those who face
greater barriers as a result. At the least,
intersectionality analysis can prompt advocates to start every gathering and project with the questions: who else should be
here; whose voice are we missing?
Reproductive justice work also requires
analysis of the root causes of reproductive
injustice. Typically, root causes analysis
examines how social, economic, and government structures maintain patriarchyand other forms of subordination. It canalso examine how other forces of social injustice shape reproductive injustice. This
makes reproductive justice work daunting.
But advocacy agendas can include shortterm goals as well as long term socialchange. In addition, root causes analysis
helps identify ally organizations. For example, allies might include organizations
DGGUHVVLQJRQ/*%74LVVXHVVH[WUD൶FNing, sexual assault and harassment, immigration and xenophobia, environmental degradation, militarization, labor, and25

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

health care.
Reproductive justice values community-based knowledge and organizational work. As a result, there may not be anational agenda or agreement on priorities. Because reproductive justice analysis requires contextualization, that result
is logical. In one region, advocates may
recognize that environmental toxins posethe greatest threat to reproductive justice.
In another region, xenophobia and its impacts on immigrants and ethnic minorities
may become the priority issue. It is also
possible, however, to organize nationallyand internationally to address one issue.
In the United States, many if not most reproductive justice organizations, as well
as reproductive rights and health organi-zations have prioritized working to protectabortion access. In Latin America, advocates in several countries have formed the
Marea Verde or Green Wave movementthat mobilizes action for abortion access.
In these movements, reproductive rights
and health work rely primarily on law andhealth expertise. Reproductive justice ismost likely to use and create strategies thatdraw grassroots energy, raise community
voices and knowledge, and generate ideological change. It asserts the goal of building an inclusive, just society, one in which
all “have the complete economic, social,
and political power and resources to makehealthy decisions about our bodies, ourfamilies, and our communities in all areasof our lives.” (In Our Own Voice 2023).

References
Arizona SB 1457, 55th Legislature, 1st Regular Session (Ariz. 2012)(enjoined in 2022).
Black Women for Wellness, “About Us,” 2022. https://bwwla.org/about/. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Borgmann, Caitlin E., Abortion Exceptionalism and Undue Burden Preemption, 2014. 71 Washington & Lee
Law Review 1047.
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc.86   7KRPDV-FRQFXUULQJ 
Browner, Carole H., 2015, The Politics of Reproduction: From Reproductive Rights to Reproductive Justice,
Oxford Handbooks Online.
California Senate Bill 24, “College Student Right to Access Act,” 2019. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB24. (Accessed February 12, 2023).
California Proposition 1, 2022, Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional$PHQGPHQW&DOLIRUQLD*HQHUDO(OHFWLRQ1RYHPEHUKWWSVYRWHUJXLGHVRVFDJRYSURSRVLtions/1/ (Accessed January 5).
Casas, Ximena, 2021, “How the ‘Green Wave’ Movement Did the Unthinkable in Latin America.” NYTimes.
com. November 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/opinion/abortion-latin-america.html. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999, “Family Planning,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report  SSKWWSVVWDFNVFGFJRYYLHZFGF $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ 
Chang, Ailsa; Mehta, Jonaki; Kenin, Justine, July 7, 2019, What the U.S. can learn from abortion rights winsin Latin America, National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/07/1110123695/abortion-roelatin-america-green-wave February 17, 2023.

26

ジェンダー研究第 26 号

2023 年

Collins, Patricia Hill, 2000, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge.
Colorado House Bill 1279, “Reproductive Health Equity Act,” 2022. https://legiscan.com/CO/text/HB1279/
LG $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ 
Connecticut House Bill 5414, “An Act Concerning the Provision of Protections for Persons Receiving andProviding Reproductive Health Care Services in the State and Access to Reproductive Health Care
Services in the State,” 2022. https://legiscan.com/CT/text/HB05414/id/2579572. (Accessed February
12, 2023).
Congressional Research Service, The Hyde Amendment: An Overview, 2022, https://crsreports.congress.
gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12167. (Accessed February 10, 2023).
&UHQVKDZ.LPEHUOp³'HPDUJLQDOL]LQJWKH,QWHUVHFWLRQRI5DFHDQG6H[$%ODFN)HPLQLVW&ULWLTXH
of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago
Legal Forum  SS
Dawson, Lindsay, Frederiksen, Brittni, Long, Michelle; Ranji, Usha; Kates, Jennifer, 2021, LGBT+ People’s
Health and Experiences Accessing Care, Kaiser Family Foundation: Women’s Health Policy, Report-XO\KWWSVZZZN൵RUJUHSRUWVHFWLRQOJEWSHRSOHVKHDOWKDQGH[SHULHQFHVDFFHVVing-care-report/ (Accessed January 5, 2023).
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.86  
Dowland, Seth, 2009, “Family Values” and the Formation of a Christian Right Agenda. Church H i s t o r y , 6HSWHPEHU SS
Eisenstadt v. Baird86  
Flynn, Sheila, 2022, “Mexicans Used to Go to the US for Legal Abortions. Now They’re Inviting Americans
In.” Independent.co.uk. June 27. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/abortionPH[LFRDPHULFDQHWZRUNVROLGDULW\EKWPO $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ 
Forward Together (formerly Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice), “A New Vision,” 2005. https://IRUZDUGWRJHWKHURUJZSFRQWHQWXSORDGV$&5-$1HZ9LVLRQSGI $FFHVVHG )HEUXDU\ 2023).
Forward Together, “Stronger Families New Mexico: Building Power for New Mexico Families,” https://forwardtogether.org/programs/state-national-action/strongfamiliesnm/. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Forward Together, “Visioning New Futures for Reproductive Justice,” 2023, January 24. https://forwardtoJHWKHURUJYLVLRQLQJQHZIXWXUHVIRUUHSURGXFWLYHMXVWLFH $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ 
Ginsburg, Faye D., and Rayna Rapp, eds., 1995, Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics ofReproduction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Greenhouse, Linda & Siegel, Reva, 2010,
Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling.
Kaplan Publishing.
Griswold v. Connecticut86  
Guttmacher Institute, “Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe,” February 1, 2023. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Guttmacher Institute, Interactive Map: US Abortion Policies and Access After Roe, as of February 16, 2023.
KWWSVVWDWHVJXWWPDFKHURUJSROLFLHV$FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\
Guttmacher Institute, State Laws and Policies: State Family Planning Funding Restrictions,
As of February 1, 2023, https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family-planningfunding-restrictions. Accessed Feb. 15, 2023.

27

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

Harris v. McRae86  
Hartmann, Betsy, 2016, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
Hernandez-Simmons, Eva, 2022, “Why Environmental Justice is Part of Reproductive Justice.” SierraClub.
org. June 24. https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2022/06/why-environmental-justice-part-reproducWLYHMXVWLFH $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ 
Hyde Amendment, Public Law 117-103, “Consolidated Appropriations Act,” 2022, Div. H §§506-507, 136
Stat. 49.
If/When/How, “Who We Are,” 2023, https://www.ifwhenhow.org/about/who-we-are/. (Accessed February
13, 2023).
Ikemoto, Lisa, 1992, The Code of Perfect Pregnancy: At the Intersection of the Ideology of Motherhood,
The Practice of Defaulting to Science, and the Interventionist Mindset of Law, 53 Ohio State Law
Journal 1206-1306.
Ikemoto, Lisa, 2011, Infertile by Force and Federal Complicity: The Story of Relf v. Weinberger, in Womenand the Law Stories Book, Chapter 5, Elizabeth M. Schneider & Stephanie M. Wildman eds. Foundation Press/Thomson Reuters.
In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, “Reproductive Justice,”KWWSVEODFNUMRUJRXULVVXHVUHSURGXFWLYHMXVWLFH $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\ -R൵H&DUROH$ERUWLRQ3URYLGHUVDQGWKH1HZ5HJXODWRU\5HJLPH7KH,PSDFWRI([WUHPH5HSURGXFWLYH
*RYHUQDQFHRQ$ERUWLRQ&DUHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRevue de Recherche en Civilisation AmericaineKWWSVMRXUQDOVRSHQHGLWLRQRUJUUFDSGI $FFHVVHG-DQXDU\
Lawrence v. Texas86  
Levison, Sandra P., Mendelsohn, Kathleen D., Nieman, Linda Z, et al., Sex and Gender Bias in A n a t o m y
and Physical Diagnosis Text Illustrations, 1994, JAMA 272(16), pp. 1267-70.
Loving v. Virginia86  
/XNHU.ULVWLQAbortion and the Politics of Motherhood. California: University of California Press.
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
0LVVRXUL6WDW7LWOH;,,3XEOLF+HDOWK$QG:HOIDUH5LJKWWR/LIHRIWKH8QERUQ&KLOG$FWKWWSV
UHYLVRUPRJRYPDLQ2QH6HFWLRQDVS["VHFWLRQ  ELG $FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\
Mohr, James C., 1979, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy. United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press.
Morgen, Sandra, 2002, Into Our Own Hands. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
1DWLRQDO$VLDQ$PHULFDQ3DFL¿F$PHULFDQ:RPHQ¶V)RUXP³$ERXW´KWWSVZZZQDSDZIRUJDERXW
(Accessed February 13, 2023).
National Birth Equity Collaborative, https://birthequity.org/news/black-women-led-organizations-launchreproductive-justice-agenda-on-49th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/ (Accessed February 13, 2023).
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, Who We Are, https://www.latinainstitute.org/en/whowe-are (Accessed January 15, 2023).
New Jersey Public Law 2021, Chapter 375, 2022. https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S49/id/2467762. (Accessed
February 12, 2023).
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).
Pierce v. Society of Sisters86  
Planned Parenthood v. Casey86  28

ジェンダー研究第 26 号

2023 年

ProPublica, 2014, The Personhood Movement: Where it came from and where it stands today, https://www.
propublica.org/article/the-personhood-movement-timeline (accessed January 15, 2023).
Roberts, Dorothy, 2019, Dorothy Roberts argues that Justice Clarence Thomas’s Box v. Planned Parenthood
FRQFXUUHQFHGLVWRUWVKLVWRU\-XQHKWWSVZZZODZXSHQQHGXOLYHQHZVGRURWK\UREerts-argues-that-justice-clarence Accessed Feb. 13, 2023.
Romo, Vanessa, 2021, “Mexico’s Supreme Court Has Voted To Decriminalize Abortion.” NPR.org. September 7. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/07/1034925270/mexico-abortion-decriminalized-supreme-court.
(Accessed February 13, 2023).
Relf v. Weinberger86$SS'&  
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Ross, Loretta J., and Rickie Solinger, 2017, Reproductive Justice: An Introduction. Oakland, CA: Universityof California Press.
Shahyd, Khalil, 2022, The Climate Crisis is a Reproductive Justice Issue, NRDC Expert Blog, May 05, 2022,
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/khalil-shahyd/climate-crisis-reproductive-justice-issue (Accessed DeFHPEHU 
Shoichet, Catherine E., 2022, “More Americans Who Want Abortions are Turning to Mexico for Help.”
CNN.com. July 25. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/21/health/mexico-abortion-assistance-cec. (Accessed February 23, 2023).
Shahyd, Khalil, 2022, “The Climate Crisis is a Reproductive Justice Issue.” NRDC.org. May 5. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/khalil-shahyd/climate-crisis-reproductive-justice-issue. (Accessed February 
Siegel, Reva, 1992, Reasoning from the Body: A Historical Perspective on Abortion Regulation and Questions of Equal Protection, 44 Stan. L. Rev. 261 (1992).
6LHJHO5HYD7KH5LJKW¶V5HDVRQV&RQVWLWXWLRQDO&RQÀLFWDQGWKH6SUHDGRI:RPDQ3URWHFWLYH$QWL
Abortion Argument, 57 Duke Law Journal  
Silliman, Jael, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross, and Elena R. Gutierrez, 2004, Undivided Rights. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
SisterSong, 2023a, “Reproductive Justice.” https://www.sistersong.net/reproductive-justice. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
SisterSong, 2023b, “Visioning New Futures for Reproductive Justice Declaration 2023,” 2023, January
25. https://www.sistersong.net/visioningnewfuturesforrj. (Accessed February 13, 2023).
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).
Stern, Alexandra Minna, 2015, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America. California: University of California Press.
Taladrid, Stephania, 2022, “The Post-Roe Abortion Underground: A Multigenerational Network of Activists is Getting Abortion Pills Across the Mexican Border to Americans.” NewYorker.com. October 10. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/17/the-post-roe-abortion-underground.(Accessed February 13, 2023).
Texas Penal Code, 2A: Arts 1191, 1196 (1961). Note that Texas’ 1961 statute was substantively the same asits mid-nineteenth century abortion law.
United States Public Law 117-103, “Consolidated Appropriations Act,” 2022, Div. H §§506-507, 136 Stat. 49.
:HOOV5DFKHO$ERUWLRQ5LJKWV)RHV+DYH:HDSRQL]HG=RQLQJ5HJXODWLRQV+HUH¶V+RZ$SULOKWWSVUHZLUHQHZVJURXSFRPDERUWLRQULJKWVIRHVKDYHZHDSRQL]HG]RQLQJUHJXODWLRQVKHUHV29

Reproductive Justice in the U.S. After Roe

how/ Accessed Feb. 3, 2023.
:DVKLQJWRQ+RXVH%LOO³3UHVHUYLQJD3UHJQDQW,QGLYLGXDO¶V$ELOLW\WR$FFHVV$ERUWLRQ&DUH´
KWWSVDSSOHJZDJRYELOOVXPPDU\"%LOO1XPEHU  <HDU  ,QLWLDWLYH IDOVH (Accessed February 12, 2023).
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 142 U.S. 522 (2021).
:LQJR(ULQ,QJUDKDP1DWDOLH5REHUWV6DUDK&05HSURGXFWLYH+HDOWK&DUH3ULRULWLHVDQG%DUULHUVWR(൵HFWLYH&DUHIRU/*%743HRSOH$VVLJQHG)HPDOHDW%LUWK$4XDOLWDWLYH6WXG\Women’s
Health Issues-XO$XJ  
Zablocki v. Redhail86  

（掲載決定日：2023 年 5 月  日）30

ジェンダー研究第 26 号

2023 年

要旨

ロー判決以後のアメリカ合衆国における
リプロダクティブ・ジャスティス
リサ・C・イケモト *本稿は、リプロダクティブ・ライツが間違いなく危機にあるアメリカ合衆国において、性と生殖のヘルスケアへのアクセスの保障における、リプロダクティブ・ジャスティス（性・生殖・再生産をめぐる社会正義）という概念枠組みの役割に焦点を当てる。2022 年 6 月、妊娠を継続するかしないか決める権利を合衆国憲法は保障しないという判決が、アメリカ合衆国最高裁の保守多数派によって下された。本稿では、リプロダクティブ・ヘルス、リプロ
ダクティブ・ライツ、そしてリプロダクティブ・ジャスティスのフレームワークと、これら三つのフレームワークの相互作用、そして反中絶の政治と法を導き出しているイデオロ
ギー的な力に関して記述し、評価する。憲法に保障された権利が不在という状況の中、リ
プロダクティブ・ジャスティスの権利擁護と活動はより重要になってきている。本稿では、
ポスト・ロー判決の時代において、リプロダクティブ・ジャスティスがどのような貢献ができるか考察する 。
キーワード
リプロダクティブ・ジャスティス、中絶、優生思想、保守的な家族規範（family values）、
ロー判決、ドッブス判決（翻訳：大室恵美）
この論文の日本語訳は以下のリンクから読むことができます。
https://www2.igs.ocha.ac.jp/ips/ips27/* カリフォルニア大学デービス校法学部マーティン・ルーサー・キング Jr. 教授

31