Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the United States possesses a fragmented patchwork of state laws imposing varying degrees of restrictions on and penalties for abortion. This talk will examine the profound implications of this arrangement for noncitizen women, whose rights and mobility are already constrained by federal immigration laws and policies. It will argue that the intersection of state-level abortion restrictions and federal immigration enforcement creates de facto internal borders, uniquely curtailing the reproductive freedoms of noncitizens.

Faulty forensic evidence and biased evidence relying on sex-based stereotypes have long been used to convict innocent women in situations where an accident or health event has been misconstrued as a criminal act. This talk will conceptualize and consider “reproductive wrongful convictions,” which are instances in which a noncriminal pregnancy-related event or act––such as a miscarriage, stillbirth, or taking legally prescribed medicine––is erroneously labeled as criminal. It will also attend to the ways that women with disabilities and from racially and economically subordinated communities are often labeled as “unfit” and made particularly vulnerable to these charges.

Using the example of post-Dobbs abortion bans that contain no exceptions for incest or rape, this talk will argue that law and institutions charged with protecting the vulnerable are often responsible for the oppression of women, the suppression of their capacities, and the harms that follow. It will examine some of the ways that the state wields and perpetuates sexual violence inconsistently based on race and class, as it curates prurient and avoidable harm against women and girls, fails to shield them from harm, and too frequently magnifies both risks of this harm and the harm itself.

Healthcare conscientious objection allows providers to refuse treatment based on moral or religious beliefs. Alongside the legalization of abortion since the 1970s, conscience clauses have expanded globally. In response, some legislative bodies and courts have implemented institutional safeguards to ensure that conscience-based refusals do not become insurmountable obstacles for patients.  This talk will argue that while these institutional safeguards hold potential, they have not fundamentally altered the dominant understanding of medical objection, which frames the conflict and its resolution as a situation involving two equally balanced parties.