2. Influences on Women’s Reproductive Rights and the Notion of Backlash
Religious nationalisms are animated by family drama; they all center their fierce energies on the family, its erotic energies, its gendered order. This is because the institutional logic of religion centers on the order of creation, locating humanness in the cosmos, replicating cosmology through ritual, a practical metaphysics that necessarily points before life and death.
3. International and Domestic Approaches to Reproductive Rights: Historical Battle for the Right to Abortion in Ireland and the United States
Considering that the Court’s decision in Roe v Wade connotes, to many, a turning point in the fight for women’s equality, one might expect the Court’s narrative of advancement to focus on new thinking about the rights and autonomy of women. However, Blackmun grounds the right to reproductive choice squarely within a narrative of medical progress, suggesting that women’s reproductive freedom hinges on contemporary medical knowledge and technology.
If the Court had acknowledged a woman’s equality aspect, not simply a patient-physician autonomy constitutional dimension to the abortion issue, a majority perhaps might have seen the public assistance cases as instances in which, borrowing a phrase from Justice Stevens, the sovereign had violated its "duty to govern impartially”.
It [Casey] adopted instead an “undue burden” standard that permitted the state to regulate abortion to protect unborn life from the beginning of pregnancy, so long as the state protected life by means that respected women’s authority to decide whether to give birth. In so holding the Court created opportunities for opponents of abortion to enact restrictions on abortion that Roe itself never sanctioned, restrictions that were designed to transform the public’s understandings of the morality and the constitutionality of the practice.
Women struggling to make ends meet who are denied abortion coverage and are also forced to confront additional costs imposed by abortion restrictions are left with few options. They may have to postpone paying for other basic needs like food, rent, heating, and utilities to save the money for an abortion. In one study, more than one-third of women who had an abortion in the second trimester stated that they would have preferred to have the procedure earlier but could not because they needed to raise money. The greater the delay in obtaining an abortion, the more expensive the procedure becomes, catching poor women in a vicious cycle.
4. Beyond the Abortion Debate: Current Legal Challenges to Women’s Reproductive Rights
Despite the meaningful victory represented in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt, the Court evaluated only two questions related to the legislation and did not address the broader plethora of laws described above, that prevail against women in states like Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming where only one abortion clinic remains. Indeed, it would be a mistake to read Whole Woman’s Health as representing a fundamental change to abortion access on the ground level, because the conditions in many states continue to so significantly burden and stigmatize that right, particularly for poor women.
The original name for this policy derives from the announcement made by the administration of former President Ronald Reagan at the United Nations International Conference on Population, in 1984 in Mexico City. In its initial formulation, the policy required non-governmental organisations (NGOs) outside the US to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” with funds from any donor, including their own money, as a condition for receiving US global family planning assistance.
(…) repeal would see us reclaim our very constitution, in law, in body, and in territory, as we asked others to vote with us. Repeal made the impossible possible as moments of conversation, together with their silent pauses, at kitchen tables, information stalls, street platforms and media studios, assembled somehow and turned a deceptively simple ‘yes’ out of a mess of collective joy, heart-breaking stories, legal exchange and reproductive connections.
It is likely that refusal on the part of GPs to comply with professional obligations will be more pronounced in rural, isolated, and close-knit communities in Ireland, which could force women to migrate internally for access to abortion care. Women in such areas may also feel unable to access abortion-related consultations from their GPs due to perceived shame or lack of confidentiality.
Conflicts of Interest
- Ahdar, Rex J. 2017. Worlds Colliding: Conservative Christians and the Law. Abingdon upon Thames: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, Abigail R. A. 2019. Erosion of women’s reproductive rights in the United States. BMJ 366: 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. 1999. Is western patriarchal feminism good for third world/minority women? In Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Edited by Susan Moller Okin. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Andaya, Elise. 2019. I’m building a wall around my uterus: Abortion Politics and the Politics of Othering in Trump’s America. Cultural Anthropology 34: 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bano, Samia. 2016. In the name of God? Religion and feminist legal theory. In The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory. Abingdon upon Thames: Routledge, pp. 169–86. [Google Scholar]
- Bingenheimer, Jeffrey B., and Patty Skuster. 2017. The foreseeable harms of Trump’s global gag rule. Studies in Family Planning 48: 279–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borchelt, Gretchen. 2018. The Impact Poverty Has on Women’s Health. Human Rights Chicago 43: 16–18. [Google Scholar]
- Borgmann, Caitlin E. 2008. The meaning of life: Belief and reason in the abortion debate. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 18: 551–608. [Google Scholar]
- Caron, Simone M. 2008. Who Chooses?: American Reproductive History Since 1830. Florida: University Press of Florida. [Google Scholar]
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, United Nations General Assembly. 1979. Treaty Series; New York: United Nations, December 18, vol. 1249.
- Chrisler, Joan C. 2014. A reproductive justice approach to women’s health. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 14: 205–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuang, Cynthia H., and Carol S. Weisman. 2019. Taking Aim at Contraceptive Coverage-The Trump Administration’s Attacks on Reproductive Rights. The New England Journal of Medicine 380: 993–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottingham, Jane, Eszter Kismodi, Adriane Martin Hilber, Ornella Lincetto, Marcus Stahlhofer, and Sofia Gruskin. 2010. Using human rights for sexual and reproductive health: Improving legal and regulatory frameworks. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 88: 551–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cumberland, Sarah. 2012. From population control to human rights. World Health Organization. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90: 86–87. [Google Scholar]
- De Londras, Fiona, and Mairead Enright. 2018. Repealing the 8th. Bristol: Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
- Donnelly, Mary, and Claire Murray. 2020. Abortion care in Ireland: Developing legal and ethical frameworks for conscientious provision. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 148: 127–32. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas, Elliot. 2019. Poland: New Legislation Treats Sex Education as ‘Pedophilia’, Deutche Welle. October 16. Available online: https://www.dw.com/en/poland-new-legislation-treats-sex-education-as-pedophilia/a-50853031 (accessed on 11 February 2020).
- Ehrlich, J. Shoshanna, and Alesha E. Doan. 2019. Abortion Regret: The New Attack on Reproductive Freedom. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. [Google Scholar]
- Elomäki, Anna, and Johanna Kantola. 2018. Theorizing feminist struggles in the triangle of neoliberalism, conservatism, and nationalism. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender State & Society 25: 337–60. [Google Scholar]
- European Parliament. 2002. Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities. Report on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (2001/2128 (INI). Brussels: European Parliament, June 6. [Google Scholar]
- European Parliament. 2009. Situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union 2004-2008. Resolution 2007 (2145) (INI). Brussels: European Parliament, January 14. [Google Scholar]
- Fineman, Martha L. A. 1995. Masking dependency: The political role of family rhetoric. Virginia Law Review 81: 2181–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fletcher, Ruth. 2018. Repealed The 8th: Translating Travesty, Global Conversation, and the Irish Abortion Referendum. Feminist Legal Studies 26: 233–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, Sarah. 2019. Nostalgic Nationalism: How a Discourse of Sacrificial Reproduction Helped Fuel Brexit Britain. Cultural Anthropology 34: 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, Sarah, and Faye Ginsburg. 2019. Reproductive politics in the age of trump and Brexit. Cultural Anthropology 34: 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freedman, Lynn P., and Stephen L. Isaacs. 1993. Human rights and reproductive choice. Studies in Family Planning 24: 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedland, Roger. 2001. Religious nationalism and the problem of collective representation. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 125–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, Katie L. 2008. The rhetoric of Roe v. Wade: When the (male) doctor knows best. Southern Communication Journal 73: 312–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. 1985. Some thoughts on autonomy and equality in relation to Roe v. Wade. North Carolina Law Review 63: 375–86. [Google Scholar]
- Goodwin, Michele. 2017. Troubling Legislative Agendas: Leveraging Women’s Health against Women’s Reproductive Rights. Advance: The Journal of the ACS Issue Briefs 11: 93–106. [Google Scholar]
- Gozdecka, Dorota Anna. 2009. Moral obligations of the state or a woman’s right to privacy. NoFo: Journal of Extreme Legal Positivism 6: 89–99. [Google Scholar]
- Gozdecka, Dorota Anna. 2012. The Polish Catholic Church and the regulation of IVF in Poland: Polarised political discourses and the battle over ‘proper’reproduction. Feminists Law 2. [Google Scholar]
- Gozdecka, Dorota Anna. 2015a. A community of paradigm subjects? Rights as corrective tools in culturally contested claims of recognition in Europe. Social Identities 21: 328–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gozdecka, Dorota Anna. 2015b. Rights, Religious Pluralism and the Recognition of Difference: Off the Scales of Justice. Abingdon upon Thames: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Greenhouse, Linda. 2009. Democracy and the courts: The case of abortion. Hastings Law Journal 61: 1333–44. [Google Scholar]
- Greenhouse, Linda, and Reva B. Siegel. 2011. Before (and after) Roe v. Wade: New questions about backlash. The Yale Law Journal 120: 2028–87. [Google Scholar]
- Hammond, Alexandra. 2019. Disparities in Access to Contraception in the United States: An Intersectional Analysis. Claremont College Thesis, Scripps Senior Theses. 1356. Claremont College, Claremont, CA, USA. [Google Scholar]
- Himmelstein, Jerome L. 1986. The social basis of antifeminism: Religious networks and culture. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 25: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooton, Angela. 2005. A broader vision of the reproductive rights movement: Fusing mainstream and Latina feminism. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 13: 59–86. [Google Scholar]
- International Women’s Health Coalition. 2019. Crisis in Care: Two Year Impact of Trump’s Global Gag Rule. Available online: https://31u5ac2nrwj6247cya153vw9-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IWHC_GGR_Report_2019-WEB_single_pg-2.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2020).
- Kasstan, Ben. 2018. Irish voters repealed the eighth: now it’s time to ensure access to abortion care in law and in practice. Reproductive Health Matters 26: 51–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Król, Agnieszka, and Paula Pustułka. 2018. Women on strike: Mobilizing against reproductive injustice in Poland. International Feminist Journal of Politics 20: 366–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labbok, Miriam H., Paige Hall Smith, and Emily C. Taylor. 2008. Breastfeeding and feminism: A focus on reproductive health, rights and justice. International Breastfeeding Journal 3: 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levine, Phillip B., Amy B. Trainor, and David J. Zimmerman. 1996. The effect of Medicaid abortion funding restrictions on abortions, pregnancies and births. Journal of Health Economics 15: 555–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lottes, Ilsa L. 2002. Sexual health policies in other industrialized countries: Are there lessons for the United States? Journal of Sex Research 39: 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macklin, Ruth. 2019. The “Global gag rule”: Curtailing women’s reproductive rights. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 4: 198–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malloy, Jonathan. 2017. Political opportunity structures, evangelical Christians and morality politics in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science 52: 402–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mijatovic, Dunja. 2019. We Need to Stand up for Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Saint Strasbourg: Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/we-need-to-stand-up-for-women-s-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights (accessed on 11 February 2020).
- Mohr, James C. 1979. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, Lynn M. 2019. Reproductive Governance, Redux. Medical Anthropology 38: 113–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Okin, Susan Moller. 1999. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 2004a. European Strategy for the Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Recommendation 1675.2004. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, October 5. [Google Scholar]
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 2004b. European Strategy for the Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Resolution 1399. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, October 5. [Google Scholar]
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 2008a. Access to Safe and Legal Abortion. Report. Doc. 11537 rev. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, April 8. [Google Scholar]
- Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 2008b. Access to Safe and Legal Abortion in Europe. Resolution 1607. 2008. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, April 16. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, Julie Stone, and Andrea Wolper, eds. 2018. Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. Abingdon upon Thames: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Pohlman, Harold L. 2005. Constitutional Debate in Action: Civil Rights and Liberties. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Reichenbach, Laura, and Mindy Roseman, eds. 2011. Reproductive Health and Human Rights: The Way Forward. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar]
- Riddle, Jennifer. 2002. Making CEDAW universal: Critique of CEDAW’s reservation regime under article 28 and the effectiveness of the reporting process. George Washington International Law Review 34: 605–38. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, Dorothy. 2015. Reproductive justice, not just rights. Dissent 62: 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rohlinger, Deana A., and Jessie Grace. 2018. Nevertheless, They Persisted: Feminisms and Continued Resistance in the US Women’s Movement. Abingdon upon Thames: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Rohlinger, Deana, and David S. Meyer. 2005. Transnational Framing of Access to Abortion in the United States, England, and Ireland. In The US Women’s Movement in a Global Perspective. Edited by Leonard Banaszak. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 197–214. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, Melody. 2011. Pro-life, pro-woman? Frame extension in the American antiabortion movement. Journal of Women Politics & Policy 32: 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, Loretta, and Rickie Solinger. 2017. Reproductive Justice: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, Rickie. 2007. Sex equality arguments for reproductive rights: Their critical basis and evolving constitutional expression. Emory Law Journal 56: 815–42. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, Reva. 2008. Dignity and the politics of protection: Abortion restrictions under Casey/Carhart. Yale Law Journal 117: 1694–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegel, Reva, and Linda Greenhouse. 2018. The Unfinished Story of Roe V. Wade. In Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories. Edited by Melissa Murray, Kate Shaw and Reva Siegel. St. Paul. Foundation Press. [Google Scholar]
- Small, Andrew. 2018. From conflict to consensus: Reconciling the right to freedom of religion and LGBT rights. Alternative Law Journal 43: 221–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, Andrea. 2005. Beyond pro-choice versus pro-life: Women of color and reproductive justice. NWSA Journal 17: 119–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smyth, Lisa. 2002. Feminism and abortion politics: Choice, rights, and reproductive freedom. Women’s Studies International Forum 25: 335–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starrs, Ann M. 2017. The Trump global gag rule: An attack on US family planning and global health aid. The Lancet 389: 485–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stearns, Nancy. 1988. Roe v. Wade: Our struggle continues. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 4: 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Szelewa, Dorota. 2016. Killing ‘unborn children’? The Catholic church and abortion law in Poland since 1989. Social & Legal Studies 25: 741–64. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. 1995. Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action, Adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women. New York: United Nations, October 27. [Google Scholar]
- Wald, Kenneth D., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill. 1988. Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review 82: 531–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wald, Kenneth D., Adam L. Silverman, and Kevin S. Fridy. 2005. Making sense of religion in political life. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 121–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1996. Women and the biological reproduction of “the nation”. Women’s Studies International Forum 19: 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziegler, Mary. 2013. Roe’s race: The supreme court, population control, and reproductive justice. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 25: 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziegler, Mary. 2014. Beyond backlash: Legal history, polarization, and Roe v. Wade. Washington and Lee Law Review 71: 969–1024. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegler, Mary. 2015. After Roe. Harvard: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Ziegler, Mary. 2018. Beyond Abortion: Roe V. Wade and the Battle for Privacy. Harvard: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113. 1973.
Attorney General v X. 1992. IESC 1;  1 IR, Ireland.
A. and B. v EHB and C. 1997. IEHC 176.
Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479. 1965.
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd Stephen Grogan and others. 1991. Case C-159/90.
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 1992, 64/1991/316/387-388. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124. 2007.
Harris v McRae 448 U.S. 297. 1980.
Williams v. Zbaraz, 448 U.S. 358 (1980).
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 505 U.S. 833. 1991.
A, B and C v Ireland. 2010. App No 25579/05. Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 579 U.S. 2016.
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).