💬 "Did you know that Roe v. Wade wasn't argued as a women’s equality issue but as a privacy case? What does this mean for reproductive rights? 🧠💡 Dive into the legal history and implications in our latest blog! Let’s discuss—your voice matters! ✊💖
👇 What’s your take? Share your thoughts in the comments! 🗣️#ReproductiveRights #LegalHistory #WomensEquality #SocialJustice #GenderJustice
Introduction: Is Forced Birth A Modern Form of Legalized Slavery?
Article Summary
This essay delves into the legal, historical, and cultural factors behind the overturning of Roe v. Wade, emphasizing the implications for women’s reproductive rights and gender equality. It examines the legal reasoning behind key cases, the potential consequences of religious influence on medical decisions, and the broader implications of conservative judicial trends. The essay calls for a stronger legal argument to protect women’s autonomy and address the systemic challenges posed by gender inequality in lawmaking.
About Leslie Juvin-Acker and Her Expertise
Leslie Juvin-Acker is an accomplished author and former celebrity life coach with a legal background. With her extensive education in law, sociology, and international affairs, she excels at distilling complex legal issues into accessible language, empowering individuals to understand how these issues affect their lives. Her experience studying administrative law and corporate governance, combined with her passion for social justice, positions her as a thought leader on the intersection of law, gender, and equality.
The Role of Reproductive Autonomy in Women’s Lives
Women discuss law, politics, and economics in places where they can feel free to discuss issues that matter to them.
When I sit in the salon chair, in the coffee shop, at the park, in the parking lot of daycare and schools, and on the sidelines of school plays, sports games, and children’s activities the law, politics, and women's equality is a subject I talk passionately about with my girlfriends.
One of the subjects I discuss with them is the subject of reproductive autonomy. I spend most of my time teaching and explaining the legal history, core arguments, and the potential outcomes of the legal decisions that a male judicial and legislative majority make on our behalves. This is a moment to mention that more women than ever are in law schools across the country. This trend began in 2016 (no surprise there). Nearly 60% of law school students are women now, as of 2023.
The Legal Foundations of Roe v. Wade
Discusses the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade and why its legal framework was vulnerable to attack.
Why Was the Argument in Roe v. Wade Destined to Be Overturned?
One of the main issues I discuss is the subject of women’s rights, equality, and reproductive freedom. Women ask me why Roe v. Wade was overturned and what it all means for us women. In short, Roe v. Wade was a flimsy case. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that it gave sweeping access to abortion too quickly, saying that it opened the argument up to religious groups to attack. She foresaw the issue being better codified at the state level—which we are now currently seeing, as 16 states and counting have codified abortion rights. This will not stop as the resurgence of septic abortion wards—a terrifying (and mostly totally forgotten) vestige of American history of anti-abortion legislation—will once again appear in states that outlaw abortion.
Why was Roe v. Wade flimsy?
Well, for argument reasons.
The argument was not about the question “Are women equal to men and therefore entitled to total liberty?”
It was “Does the Constitution protect a pregnant person's right to have an abortion?”
This is the specific question that was asked before the Supreme Court to decide.
The Supreme Court at the time of the “civil rights era” liberally interpreted the “Right To Privacy” clause, which was used liberally to apply to one’s right to interracial marriage, homosexual sex inside the confines of one’s home, and the use of contraceptives. During this time, the civil rights era saw advances in liberties for women, Black people, and gay people who barely received equal protection under the law—and where the government frequently invaded their homes to beat, kill, and intimidate them into submission of the white, male majority.
The applied law to the question was the right of privacy. In Roe v. Wade the argument was applied to what happens between a doctor and his/her patient inside the medical space. This was not a matter of a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has a baby, a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, or a woman's right to be free of male decisions over her choices. It was about the doctor-patient relationship.
This decision activated Christian groups who believe, according to their religion, that a fetus has a “right to life.” That, according to their religious beliefs and logic, a fetus’s right to life supersedes a woman’s right to life, autonomy, and liberty to choose what she does with her body and life. In effect, their agenda was and has always been to empower the government to decide for her “to protect the baby.” Therefore, the legal argument is this: the state has an interest to intervene against the right to privacy in these circumstances to protect the “potential of life” and the “health of the pregnant” woman.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: A Turning Point
Analyzes the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and its implications for constitutional rights.
How Did Roe v. Wade Set the Stage for Its Overturning in Dobbs?
Roe v. Wade did not take away a state’s right to regulate abortion, however. A state can limit how far along a pregnancy an abortion can take place. And, since then, some states have issued rules that are deemed unreasonable by doctors, limiting their professional ability to choose what happens in the medical space. Which is what set up the case that reversed Roe v. Wade. This case is called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO). JWHO argued that Mississippi’s law invaded this right, leading to the legal question that was argued and analyzed by the now conservative and Christian religion-leaning Supreme Court: “Is abortion a constitutionally protected right?”
Historical Context and Gender Inequality in Law
When this question juxtaposed with the Constitution is narrowly construed (meaning, when analyzed on this very simple question), the answer according to the Supreme Court was no—there is no evidence that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
Their rationale? Meaning, their reasoning based on their historical evidence that supports their answer: historically, the majority of states legally outlawed abortion. They said that the Constitution, its founders, and since then (up until Roe v. Wade) they found that abortion was not a part of American history, nor was it intended to be included as a fundamental right.
This narrow construction and analysis of legislative history reveals a very glaring fact: women couldn’t vote for a vast majority of this history. Men made those decisions. Any woman would argue that, if women—let alone women of color—could vote, history would look very different. Laws would be very different. Again, this is why critical race theory and gender studies must be taught to avoid mental gymnastics rationalizing legislative history.
Thus, in the Dobbs case, federal protection of abortion access was effectively taken away, passing it back to states where men, too, had the right to choose over a woman’s reproductive health.
The Rise of Religious Influence on Legislation
Examines how religious ideologies have shaped abortion laws and medical privacy debates.
Can Religiously Biased Judges and Legislators Dictating Medical Care Lead to Dangerous Religious-Based Laws?
Regardless of your side in moral and religious beliefs—the problem of allowing religiously biased judges and legislators to decide what kind of medical care you get can open up citizens to terrifying religious-based judicial decisions and legislation.
For example, if a religious or ideological group said that cancer care is forbidden because it’s, for example, “God’s way of weeding out people,” they’d find justification to vote/make rulings on whether or not cancer care is a fundamental right. The same goes for Jehovah’s Witnesses and refusing blood transfusions. The potential for any extremist ideology to come between you—male or female—and your medical care is heightened. Cancer care is not constitutionally protected. Blood transfusions are not constitutionally protected. Access to healthcare is not constitutionally protected. Men could be prevented from buying condoms and getting vasectomies. That’s why so many liberals are trying to create protections around fundamental human rights—just as so many high-performing nations guarantee such protections.
How Does Allowing Politicians and Judges to Control Medical Care Lead to Eugenics and Authoritarianism?
While codifying abortion care via state constitution is an important legal step in protecting women’s right to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term and to make life-preserving decisions, it does not solve the big-picture problem: non-qualified people—legislators and judges—are pre-determining medical decisions. Politicians and judges are serving as doctors, surgeons, and playing the role of hospitals.
History shows us that reasoning this way leads to an opening of legally justified authoritarianism that produces to eugenics and genocides. We saw the hypocrisy when conservatives whined and protested when the CDC and all levels of governments enforced masks and recommended vaccines for everyone to prevent the national catastrophic amount of deaths caused by COVID-19 virus. But they are okay with legislating over women on one very narrow issue: abortion and birth control.
I remember when my mother complained about masks and vaccines. She said, “I don’t want the government to choose for me.”
My response was, “Remember that when you make the argument against abortion.”
Now that conservatively dominated states ban abortion, they are also seeking criminal punishment of doctors and medical professionals who provide abortion care. They are also criminalizing women who get abortions and reproductive care. State governments are attempting to enact sweeping regulations to monitor women’s reproductive patterns, care, and doctor’s visits. More and more, religious ideologies are using the government legislative and executive police power to invade a patient's fundamental right to privacy.
But what’s the legal argument? What is the next step in pushing back on the effect of religious ideologies controlling all three branches of the government and their invasion of women’s (let alone any human being's) bodily autonomy? Morally, it’s wrong to get involved in someone’s medical decisions—any medical decisions—when it doesn’t affect you. A vast majority of religious people are against forced birth and denying women medical intervention from a pregnancy gone wrong. But moral and religious arguments don’t work in a religiously conservative Supreme Court that will find legal reasoning and history—even if it's flimsy—to justify their decisions. You have to make a better legal argument to outsmart them.
The Path Forward: Crafting a Stronger Legal Argument
Explores Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views and calls for a robust legal strategy to defend women’s autonomy.
Is Gender Equality the Best Way to Argue for Abortion Rights?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the real legal issue was gender equality. She said that Roe v. Wade was better argued as a question on women’s gender equality. I just don’t think that this is strong enough. It’s obvious that women are equal to men. But men don’t give birth. This is where men will never understand the threat to their existence—they don’t die from reproduction. Women do. And a majority of men will never understand a woman’s pregnancy experience mentally, psychologically, or even rationally when given all the facts.
The reason so many women’s reproductive rights issues have gotten out of hand in conservative-controlled states is that nobody has made the best and strongest legal argument attacking the matter at its core: Is this a gender equality question? Is this a state’s rights question? Is this a privacy question? Is this a right-to-life question? What’s the main question?
Right now, lawyers protecting women’s bodily autonomy are playing whack-a-mole with nonsensical unconstitutional laws that violate a myriad of women’s constitutional rights. Attacking the liberal interpretation of right to privacy and equal protection through Supreme Court reversals is on the menu for conservative justices. This can and will lead to the reversal of civil rights when challenged by sneaky conservative lawyers backed by rich religious organizations who narrowly frame questions to obtain a result that ends up erasing decades of civil rights progress.
The Argument Using the 13th Amendment: Forced Birth Is A Modern Form of Legalized Slavery
If I was to make an argument against forced birthing, I would make the argument against involuntary servitude. That, legislating for forced birth is legalized modern slavery.
Framing the argument would be like this:
"Is forced birth a modern form of legalized slavery?"
“Is forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want involuntary servitude?”
“Is forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn’t want involuntary servitude to the man that got her pregnant?”
"If the government forces to carry a child to term and punishes her for not serving it, is the government enforcing involuntary servitude?"
I would do most of my legal research on how forced birthing is a function of human trafficking—as slavery was and is human trafficking—creating and enriching the adoption business, and allowing men to turn women into sex and reproductive slaves. Andrew Koppelman writes an expanded essay on the argument of this question.
Howard University Law Professor Lisa Crooms-Robinson explains how the 13th Amendment argument could be used. Video starts at the discussion point 13:48.
Then, there has to be a controversy. A woman has to complain to the court that her constitutional right against involuntary servitude is being violated by another person, but more specifically the government. This would have to happen in order for the courts to pass this constitutional question all the way up to the Supreme Court to then analyze the history of slavery in America and how, systematically, women, Black people, and other individuals have been forced by the government to labor for it.
This is just one way to argue and attack the problem. I don’t think gender equality arguments are strong enough when there are plenty of men in the legislature and judiciary who don’t care what a woman’s reproductive problems are.
I hope you have enjoyed this breakdown of Roe v. Wade, women’s right to abortion, and women’s reproductive rights.
Do you have ideas? Questions? Put them in the comments.
What should be the constitutional right sourced for future legal arguments for women’s reproductive rights?
Gender Equality
Privacy Rights
Healthcare Access
State's Rights
Empowering Mantras
Women’s voices shape laws.
Understanding history brings equality.
Knowledge drives meaningful change.
Autonomy is always essential.
Equality starts with unity.
Life The Good Life with Leslie Juvin-Acker: Embracing Emotional Intelligence, Intuition, and Social Justice for Lasting Fulfillment
Leslie Juvin-Acker, J.D., is a renowned expert in emotional intelligence, celebrated author, and intuitive life and career coach to top executives and celebrities. With a unique foundation in law, sociology, social justice, and a deep connection to spirit and intuition, Leslie brings a holistic perspective to life coaching. Her approach is not only shaped by an understanding of systemic issues and individual empowerment but is also guided by her ability to tap into intuition, providing clients with insights that help them connect more authentically to their own inner wisdom.
Leslie’s books and videos go beyond typical coaching by integrating practical tools for emotional intelligence, intuition, and spiritual awareness, with a strong focus on achieving balance, fulfillment, and resilience. With years of experience helping individuals transform their lives, she guides her clients to recognize and harness their full potential while encouraging a deeper understanding of the social structures that influence their journeys.
Whether examining the impacts of corporate governance on individual well-being or advocating for inclusive, accessible education, Leslie’s work illuminates the powerful intersections of personal growth, social justice, and spiritual awareness.
Through her books, videos, and transformative speaking engagements, Leslie inspires audiences to break free from limiting beliefs, overcome social and emotional barriers, and cultivate lives of joy, success, and personal empowerment. Her insights are particularly valuable for leaders, entrepreneurs, and anyone seeking to improve their emotional well-being within a context that honors both the social landscape and their spiritual journey.
Invite Leslie Juvin-Acker to speak at your next event, and discover how her expertise in spirit, intuition, emotional intelligence, law, sociology, and social justice can elevate every aspect of your life, inspiring you to live a more authentic, purposeful, and spiritually attuned “Good Life.”
#ForcedBirth #ReproductiveRights #LegalSlavery #BodilyAutonomy #WomensRights #HumanRights #GenderEquality #MyBodyMyChoice #AbortionRights #ReproductiveFreedom #SocialJustice #EndForcedBirth #WomensEquality #RightToChoose #BodilySovereignty #FeministJustice #EqualRightsForWomen #StopLegalSlavery #FreedomForWomen #HumanTraffickingAwareness #EndReproductiveCoercion #ProChoice #AbortionAccess #WomensHealthMatters #JusticeForWomen #EmpowerWomen #ReproductiveJustice #NoForcedBirth #AbortionIsHealthcare #WomenDeserveBetter
コメント