1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 9, 2013
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 9, 2013

Reproductive Justice

Abstract

The authors examine the development of reproductive rights, a law-focused movement, and reproductive justice, a social justice–aimed movement that emphasizes intersecting social identities (e.g., gender, race, and class) and community-developed solutions to structural inequalities. In examining the intertwining histories of the reproductive health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice movements, we consider the relationship between law and social movements, including the limits of law to inform radical social movements. We highlight how the relationship between scholarship and activism on the right to not have children has expanded to include notions of the right to have children (e.g., for low-income people or with the aid of technology) and the right to parent with dignity (e.g., for incarcerated people or in nonmedicalized settings). We end the article with a discussion of best practices and future directions for research.

Keyword(s): criminalization, intersectionality, reproductive justice, reproductive rights, social movements
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134037
2013-11-03
2025-01-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/9/1/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134037.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134037&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. ACRJ (Asian Communities Reprod. Justice) 2005. A New Vision for Advancing Our Movement for Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Justice Oakland, CA: ACRJ http://reproductivejustice.org/assets/docs/ACRJ-A-New-Vision.pdf [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams GD. 1997. Abortion: evidence of an issue evolution. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41:718–37 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albiston CR. 2010. Institutional Inequality and the Mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights on Leave New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Almeling R. 2011. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. AMA (Am. Med. Assoc.) 2011. Talking Points: Shackling of Pregnant Prisoners Chicago: AMA [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson BJ. 2008. Lesbians, gays, and people living with HIV: facing and fighting barriers to assisted reproduction. Cardozo J. Law Gender 15:451–75 [Google Scholar]
  7. Anderson C. 2003. Eyes Off the Prize: African Americans, the United Nations, and the Struggle for Human Rights, 1944–1955 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Ankrom v. Alabama [Ms. CR-09-1148, Aug. 26, 2011] So.3d (Ala. Crim. App 2011. [Google Scholar]
  9. Appleton SF. 2007. Gender, abortion, and travel after Roe's end. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 51:655–84 [Google Scholar]
  10. Balkin JM. 2005. What Roe v. Wade. Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision. New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  11. Beal FM. 2008 (1970). Double jeopardy: to be black and female. Meridians: Fem. Race Transnatl. 8:166–76 [Google Scholar]
  12. Beal v. Doe 432 U.S. 438 1977. [Google Scholar]
  13. Beisel N. 1998. Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Beisel N, Kay T. 2004. Abortion, race, and gender in nineteenth-century America. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:498–515 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bell AV. 2009. “It's way out of my league”: low-income women's experiences of medicalized infertility. Gender Soc. 23:688–709 [Google Scholar]
  16. Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 364, 106 Cal. App. 4th 978 (Ct. App 2003. [Google Scholar]
  17. Berger MT, Guidroz K. 2009. The Intersectional Approach: Transforming the Academy Through Race, Class, and Gender Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Bridges KM. 2009. Quasi-colonial bodies: an analysis of the reproductive lives of poor black and racially subjugated women. Columbia J. Gender Law 18:609–46 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bridges KM. 2011a. Privacy rights and public families. Harvard J. Law Gender 34:113–74 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bridges KM. 2011b. Reproducing Race: An Ethnography of Pregnancy as a Site of Racialization Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Bridgewater PD. 1999. Reproductive freedom as civil freedom: the Thirteenth Amendment's role in the struggle for reproductive rights. J. Gender Race Just. 3:401–25 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bridgewater PD. 2001. Un/re/dis covering slave breeding in Thirteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Wash. Lee Race Ethnic Ancestry Law J. 7:11–43 [Google Scholar]
  23. Bruchs AK. 2004. Clash of competing interests: Can the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and over thirty years of settled abortion law co-exist peacefully?. Syracuse Law Rev. 55:133–59 [Google Scholar]
  24. Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 1927. [Google Scholar]
  25. Burnham MA. 1987. An impossible marriage: slave law and family law. Law Inequal. 5:187–225 [Google Scholar]
  26. Burns G. 2005. The Moral Veto: Framing Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. Cahn N, Collins J. 2009. Eight is enough. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 103:501–13 [Google Scholar]
  28. Calderone MS. 1958. Abortion in the United States: A Conference Sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., at Arden House and the New York Academy of Medicine. New York: Hoeber & Harper [Google Scholar]
  29. Carey v. Population Services International 431 U.S. 678 1977. [Google Scholar]
  30. CESA (Comm. End Steriliz. Abuse) 1975. CESA Statement of Purpose. Chicago: Chicago Women's Lib. Union http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/cesapurpose.html [Google Scholar]
  31. Chalidze LL. 2009. Misinformed consent: non-medical bases for American birth recommendations as a human rights issue. N.Y. Law Sch. Law Rev. 54:59–103 [Google Scholar]
  32. Cherry A. 2007. The detention, confinement, and incarceration of pregnant women for the benefit of fetal health. Columbia J. Gender Law 16:147–97 [Google Scholar]
  33. Chesler E. 2007 (1992). Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  34. Choo HY, Ferree MM. 2010. Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociol. Theory 28:129–49 [Google Scholar]
  35. Colen S. 1986. “With respect and feelings”: voices of West Indian child care and domestic workers in New York City. All American Women: Lines that Divide, Ties that Bind JB Cole 46–70 New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Collins PH. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment Boston: Unwin Hyman [Google Scholar]
  37. Combahee River Collective 1981 (1977). A Black feminist statement. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color C Moraga, G Anzaldua 201–18 Watertown, MA: Persephone [Google Scholar]
  38. Constable M. 2007. Just Silences: The Limits and Possibilities of Modern Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Cook RJ, Dickens BM. 2009. From reproductive choice to reproductive justice. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 106:106–9 [Google Scholar]
  40. Craven C. 2010. Pushing for Midwives: Homebirth Mothers and the Reproductive Rights Movement Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Crenshaw K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ. Chicago Legal Forum 1989:139–67 [Google Scholar]
  42. Crenshaw K. 1994. Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. The Public Nature of Private Violence MA Fineman, R Mykitiuk 93–118 New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  43. Crenshaw K, Gotanda N, Peller G, Thomas K. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement New York: New Press [Google Scholar]
  44. Davidson C. 2010. Octomom and multi-fetal pregnancies: why federal legislation should require insurers to cover in vitro fertilization. William Mary J. Women Law 17:135–86 [Google Scholar]
  45. Davis K. 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword: a sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Fem. Theory 9:67–85 [Google Scholar]
  46. Delgado R, Stefancic J. 2012 (2001). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Dennis A, Blanchard K, Córdova D, Wahlin B, Clark J. et al. 2013. What happens to the women who fall through the cracks of health care reform? Lessons from Massachusetts. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 38:393–419 [Google Scholar]
  48. Derkas E. 2012. The organization formerly known as CRACK: Project Prevention and the privatized assault on reproductive wellbeing. Race Gender Class 19:179–95 [Google Scholar]
  49. Diallo DD. 2004. Reflections of a human rights educator. Meridians: Fem. Race Transnatl. 4:124–28 [Google Scholar]
  50. Diaz-Tello F, Paltrow LM. 2010. Birth justice as reproductive justice Work. Pap., Natl. Advocates Pregnant Women, New York [Google Scholar]
  51. Dudziak ML. 2010. Just say no: birth control in the Connecticut Supreme Court before Griswold v. Connecticut. Legal Stud. Work. Pap. Ser. 68, Univ. S. Calif. Law Sch. http://law.bepress.com/usclwps-lss/art68/ [Google Scholar]
  52. Ehrenreich N. 1993. The colonization of the womb. Duke Law J. 43:492–587 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ehrenreich N. 2008. The Reproductive Rights Reader: Law, Medicine, and the Construction of Motherhood New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438 1972. [Google Scholar]
  55. Fallon RH Jr. 2006. If Roe were overruled: abortion and the constitution in a post-Roe world. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 51:611–54 [Google Scholar]
  56. Fentiman LC. 2008. Pursuing the perfect mother: why America's criminalization of maternal substance abuse is not the answer—a comparative legal analysis. Mich. J. Gender Law 15:389–465 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ferree MM, Gamson WA, Gerhards J, Rucht D. 2002. Shaping Abortion Discourse: Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and the United States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Fine ME, Asch AE. 1988. Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Flavin J. 2009. Our Bodies, Our Crimes. The Policing of Women's Reproduction in America. New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  60. Fogel RW, Engerman SL. 1974. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
  61. Forman DL. 2011. When “bad” mothers make worse law: a critique of legislative limits on embryo transfer. Univ. Pa. J. Law Soc. Change 14:273–312 [Google Scholar]
  62. Freedman L, Weitz TA. 2012. The politics of motherhood meets the politics of poverty. Contemp. Sociol. 41:36–42 [Google Scholar]
  63. Fried MG. 1990. From Abortion to Reproductive Freedom: Transforming a Movement Boston: South End [Google Scholar]
  64. Galanter M. 1974. Why the “haves” come out ahead: speculations on the limits of legal change. Law Soc. Rev. 9:95–160 [Google Scholar]
  65. Ginsburg FD, Rapp R. 1991. The politics of reproduction. Annu. Rev. Anthropol 20:311–43 [Google Scholar]
  66. Ginsburg FD, Rapp R. 1995. Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  67. Godbeer R. 2002. Sexual Revolution in Early America Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  68. Gordon L. 1990 (1976). Woman's Body, Woman's Right: Birth Control in America New York: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  69. Goring DC. 2005. The history of slave marriage in the United States. J. Marshall Law Rev. 39:299–347 [Google Scholar]
  70. Gould JB, Barclay S. 2012. Mind the gap: the place of gap studies in sociolegal scholarship. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 8:323–35 [Google Scholar]
  71. Gould SJ. 1985. Carrie Buck's daughter. The Flamingo's Smile307–13 New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
  72. Greenhouse L, Siegel RB. 2010. Before (and after) Roe v. Wade: new questions about backlash. Yale Law J. 120:2028–87 [Google Scholar]
  73. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 1965. [Google Scholar]
  74. Grossberg M. 1985. Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth-Century America Chapel Hill/London: Univ. N.C. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Guendelman S, Stachel L. 2011. Infertility status and infertility treatment: racial and ethnic disparities. Reducing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Reproductive and Perinatal Outcomes A Handler, J Kennelly, N Peacock 93–117 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  76. Gurr B. 2012. The failures and possibilities of a human rights approach to secure Native American women's reproductive justice. Soc. Without Borders 7:1–28 [Google Scholar]
  77. Gutiérrez ER. 2008. Fertile Matters: The Politics of Mexican-Origin Women's Reproduction Austin: Univ. Tex. Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Gutman HG. 2003. Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of Time On The Cross Champaign: Univ. Ill. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. Halem SC. 1997. At what cost?: an argument against mandatory AZT treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women. Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 32:491–528 [Google Scholar]
  80. Harris AP. 1990. Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. Stanford Law Rev. 42:581–616 [Google Scholar]
  81. Harris LH. 2014. Challenging Conception: A Clinical and Cultural History of In Vitro Fertilization in the United States Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  82. Harris P. 2001. Compelled medical treatment of pregnant women: the balancing of maternal and fetal rights. Cleveland State Law Rev. 49:133–61 [Google Scholar]
  83. Harris v. McRae 448 U.S. 297 1980. [Google Scholar]
  84. Hartmann B. 1995 (1987). Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control Cambridge, MA: South End Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Hawkins J. 2013. Selling ART: an empirical assessment of advertising on fertility clinics' websites. Ind. Law J. 88:1147–79 [Google Scholar]
  86. Hening WW. 1809–1823. The Statutes at Large; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 13 vols. Richmond/Philadelphia/New York: W.W. Hening [Google Scholar]
  87. Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy PL. 2006. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  88. Hirschenbaum D. 2000. When CRACK is the only choice: the effect of a negative right of privacy on drug-addicted women. Berkeley Women's Law J. 15:327–37 [Google Scholar]
  89. Hooton A. 2005. A broader vision of the reproductive rights movement: fusing mainstream and Latina feminism. Am. Univ. J. Gender Soc. Policy Law 13:59–86 [Google Scholar]
  90. Hull GT, Scott PB, Smith B. 1982. But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies New York: Feminist Press [Google Scholar]
  91. Hull KE. 2001. The political limits of the rights frame: the case of same sex marriage in Hawaii. Sociol. Perspect. 44:207–32 [Google Scholar]
  92. Inuzaka J. 1991. Women of color and public policy: a case study of the women's business ownership act. Stanford Law Rev. 43:1215–39 [Google Scholar]
  93. Janssen ND. 1999. Fetal rights and the prosecution of women for using drugs during pregnancy. Drake Law Rev. 48:741–768 [Google Scholar]
  94. Jennings T. 1990. “Us colored women had to go through a plenty”: sexual exploitation of African-American slave women. J. Women's Hist. 1:45–74 [Google Scholar]
  95. Jesudason SA. 2009. In the hot tub: the praxis of building new alliances for reprogenetics. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 34:901–24 [Google Scholar]
  96. Joffe C, Weitz T, Stacey CL. 2004. Uneasy allies: pro-choice physicians, feminist health activists and the struggle for abortion rights. Sociol. Health Illn. 26:775–96 [Google Scholar]
  97. Johnson CG. 2013. Female inmates sterilized in California prisons without approval Rep., Cent. Investig. Report., Berkeley, CA, July 7. http://cironline.org/reports/female-inmates-sterilized-california-prisons-without-approval-4917 [Google Scholar]
  98. Johnson D. 2008. “TRAP”ing Roe in Indiana and a common-ground alternative. Yale Law J. 118:1356–93 [Google Scholar]
  99. Kaplan L. 1997. The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  100. Keels LM. 2010. “Substantially limited”: the reproductive rights of women living with HIV/AIDS. Univ. Baltimore Law Rev. 39:389–422 [Google Scholar]
  101. Kelly M. 2010. Regulating the reproduction and mothering of poor women: the controlling image of the welfare mother in television news coverage of welfare reform. J. Poverty 14:76–96F [Google Scholar]
  102. King DK. 1988. Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: the context of a black feminist ideology. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 14:42–72 [Google Scholar]
  103. Kline W. 2005. Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Kluchin RM. 2011. Fit to Be Tied: Sterilization and Reproductive Rights in America, 1950–1980 New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Krauss DJ. 1991. Regulating women's bodies: The adverse effect of fetal rights theory on childbirth decisions and women of color. Harvard Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. Law Rev. 26:523–48 [Google Scholar]
  106. Krawiec KD. 2009. Why we should ignore the “Octomom.”. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. Colloq. 104:120–31 [Google Scholar]
  107. Kukura E. 2010. Choice in birth: preserving access to VBAC. Pa. State Law Rev. 114:959–1001 [Google Scholar]
  108. Lee MM. 2000. Defining the agenda: a new struggle for African-American women in the fight for reproductive self-determination. Wash. Lee Race Ethnic Ancestry Law J. 6:87–102 [Google Scholar]
  109. Lee RL. 2009. New trends in global outsourcing of commercial surrogacy: a call for regulation. Hastings Women's Law J. 20:275–300 [Google Scholar]
  110. Lezin J. 2003. (Mis)conceptions: unjust limitations on legally unmarried women's access to reproductive technology and their use of known donors. Hastings Women's Law J. 14:185–214 [Google Scholar]
  111. Lombardo PA. 1985. Three generations, no imbeciles: new light on Buck v. Bell.. NYU Law Rev. 60:30–62 [Google Scholar]
  112. Luft RE, Ward J. 2009. Toward an intersectionality just out of reach: confronting challenges to intersectional practice. Adv. Gender Res. 13:9–37 [Google Scholar]
  113. Luker K. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  114. Luker K. 1996. Dubious Conceptions: The Politics of Teenage Pregnancy Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  115. Luker K. 2006. When Sex Goes to School: Warring Views on Sex—and Sex Education—Since the Sixties New York: W. W. Norton & Company [Google Scholar]
  116. Luna ZT. 2009. From rights to justice: women of color changing the face of US reproductive rights organizing. Soc. Without Borders 4:343–64 [Google Scholar]
  117. Luna ZT. 2010. Marching toward reproductive justice: coalitional (re) framing of the march for women's lives. Sociol. Inq. 80:554–78 [Google Scholar]
  118. Luna ZT. 2011. “The phrase of the day”: examining contexts and co-optation of reproductive justice activism in the women's movement. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 32 AC Snyder, SP Stobbie 219–46 Bingley, UK: Emerald Kingdom [Google Scholar]
  119. Madrigal v. Quilligan 639 F.2d 789 (9th Cir 1981. [Google Scholar]
  120. Maher v. Doe 432 U.S. 526 1977. [Google Scholar]
  121. Markens S. 2012. The global reproductive health market: U.S. media framings and public discourses about transnational surrogacy. Soc. Sci. Med. 74:1745–53 [Google Scholar]
  122. Matsuda MJ. 1990. Beside my sister, facing the enemy: legal theory out of coalition. Stanford Law Rev. 43:1183–92 [Google Scholar]
  123. McCall L. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 30:1771–800 [Google Scholar]
  124. McCann MW. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  125. McCann MW. 2006. Law and social movements: contemporary perspectives. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2:17–38 [Google Scholar]
  126. McCorvey v. Hill 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir 2004. [Google Scholar]
  127. Merry SE. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  128. Mettler S. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  129. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. 2011 (2003). Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  130. Minow M. 1991. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  131. Mohr JC. 1978. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  132. Moraga C, Anzaldua G. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color Watertown, MA: Persephone [Google Scholar]
  133. Mutcherson K. 2009. Disabling dreams of parenthood: the fertility industry, anti-discrimination and parents with disabilities. Law Inequal. 27:311–64 [Google Scholar]
  134. Nachtigall RD, Castrillo M, Shah N, Turner D, Harrington J, Jackson R. 2009. The challenge of providing infertility services to a low-income immigrant Latino population. Fertil. Steril. 92:116–23 [Google Scholar]
  135. NeJaime D. 2010. Winning through losing. Iowa Law Rev. 96:941–1012 [Google Scholar]
  136. Nelson A. 2011. Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight Against Medical Discrimination Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  137. Nelson J. 2003. Women of Color and the Reproductive Rights Movement New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  138. N.J. Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.V. 889 A.2d 1153 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div 2005. [Google Scholar]
  139. NWLC (Natl. Women's Law Cent.) 2010. Mothers Behind Bars: A State-by-State Report Card and Analysis of Federal Policies on Conditions of Confinement for Pregnant and Parenting Women and the Effect on Their Children Washington, DC: NWLC http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/mothersbehindbars2010.pdf [Google Scholar]
  140. Oberman M. 1991. Sex, drugs, pregnancy, and the law: rethinking the problems of pregnant women who use drugs. Hastings Law J. 43:505–48 [Google Scholar]
  141. O'Connor K. 1996. No Neutral Ground? Abortion Politics in an Age of Absolutes Boulder, CO: Westview [Google Scholar]
  142. Ocen P. 2012. Punishing pregnancy: race, incarceration and the shackling of pregnant prisoners. Calif. Law Rev. 100:1–54 [Google Scholar]
  143. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health 497 U.S. 502 1990. [Google Scholar]
  144. Okin SM. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  145. Pacillo EL. 1997. Expanding the feminist imagination: an analysis of reproductive rights. J. Gender Law 6:113–38 [Google Scholar]
  146. Paltrow LM. 1990. When becoming pregnant is a crime. Crim. Justice Ethics 9:41–47 [Google Scholar]
  147. Paltrow LM. 1998. Pregnant drug users, fetal persons, and the threat to Roe v. Wade. Albany Law Rev. 62:999–1055 [Google Scholar]
  148. Paltrow LM. 2002. The war on drugs and the war on abortion: some initial thoughts on the connections, intersections and effects. Reprod. Health Matters 10:162–70 [Google Scholar]
  149. Paltrow LM. 2009. What to expect: legal developments and challenges in reproductive justice. Cardozo J. Law Gend. 15:502–17 [Google Scholar]
  150. Paltrow LM. 2011. Missed opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: the limits of pro-choice lawyering. NYU Rev. Law Soc. Change 35:194–225 [Google Scholar]
  151. Paltrow LM. 2013. Roe v. Wade and the new Jane Crow: reproductive rights in the age of mass incarceration. Am. J. Public Health 103:17–21 [Google Scholar]
  152. Paltrow LM, Flavin J. 2013. Arrests of and forced interventions on pregnant women in the United States, 1973–2005: implications for women's legal status and public health. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 38:299–343 [Google Scholar]
  153. People v. Sanger 118 N.E. 637 (N.Y 1918. [Google Scholar]
  154. Petchesky RP. 1990 (1984). Abortion and Woman's Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  155. Pillard CT. 2006. Our other reproductive choices: equality in sex education, contraceptive access, and work-family policy. Emory Law J. 56:941–92 [Google Scholar]
  156. Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992. [Google Scholar]
  157. Price K. 2010. What is reproductive justice? How women of color activists are redefining the pro-choice paradigm. Meridians: Fem. Race Transnatl. 10:42–65 [Google Scholar]
  158. Quay E. 1960. Justifiable abortion: medical and legal foundations (part one). Georgetown Law J. 49:173–241 [Google Scholar]
  159. Quay E. 1961. Justifiable abortion: medical and legal foundations (part two). Georgetown Law J. 49:395–443 [Google Scholar]
  160. Ranji U, Salganicoff A. 2009. State Medicaid coverage of family planning services: summary of State Survey findings George Washington Univ. Sch. Public Health Health Serv./Kaiser Found., Washington, DC. http://kff.org/medicaid/report/state-medicaid-coverage-of-family-planning-services-summary-of-state-survey-findings/ [Google Scholar]
  161. Reagan LJ. 1998. When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867–1973 Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  162. Reagon BJ. 1983. Coalition politics: turning the century. Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology B Smith 356–68 Latham, NY: Kitchen Table/Women Color Press [Google Scholar]
  163. Reed J. 1978. From Private Vice To Public Virtue: The Birth Control Movement and American Society Since 1830 New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  164. Reich CA. 1964. The new property. Yale Law J. 73:733–87 [Google Scholar]
  165. Reich JA. 2005. Fixing Families: Parents, Power and the Child Welfare System New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  166. Relf v. Weinberger 372 F.Supp. 1196 (D.C. Dist. Ct 1974. [Google Scholar]
  167. Relf v. Weinberger 565 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir 1977. [Google Scholar]
  168. Rhode DL. 1993. Adolescent pregnancy and public policy. Polit. Sci. Q. 108:635–69 [Google Scholar]
  169. Roberts DE. 1991. Punishing drug addicts who have babies: women of color, equality, and the right of privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 104:1419–82 [Google Scholar]
  170. Roberts DE. 1996. Unshackling Black motherhood. Mich. Law Rev. 95:938–64 [Google Scholar]
  171. Roberts DE. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty New York: Pantheon [Google Scholar]
  172. Roberts DE. 2002. Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  173. Roberts DE. 2005. Privatization and punishment in the new age of reprogenetics. Emory Law J. 54:1343–60 [Google Scholar]
  174. Roberts DE. 2009. Race, gender, and genetic technologies: a new reproductive dystopia?. Signs: J. Women Cult. Soc. 34:783–804 [Google Scholar]
  175. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 1973. [Google Scholar]
  176. Rosenberg GN. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  177. Ross LJ. 2006. Understanding Reproductive Justice Atlanta, GA: SisterSong [Google Scholar]
  178. Ross LJ, Brownlee SL, Diallo DD, Rodriquez L. 2001. The SisterSong Collective: women of color, reproductive health and human rights. Am. J. Health Stud. 17:79–88 [Google Scholar]
  179. Roth R. 2004a. “No new babies?” Gender inequality and reproductive control in the criminal justice and prison systems. J. Gender Soc. Policy Law 12:391–425 [Google Scholar]
  180. Roth R. 2004b. Searching for the state: Who governs prisoners' reproductive rights?. Soc. Polit. 11:411–38 [Google Scholar]
  181. Roth R. 2010. Obstructing justice: prisons as barriers to medical care for pregnant women. UCLA Women's Law J. 18:79–106 [Google Scholar]
  182. Rutherford C. 1991. Reproductive freedoms and African American women. Yale J. Law Fem. 4:255–90 [Google Scholar]
  183. Saletan W. 2004. Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  184. Sandefur RL. 2008. Access to civil justice and race, class, and gender inequality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34:339–58 [Google Scholar]
  185. Scheingold SA. 1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  186. Sentencing Project 2012. Incarcerated women Factsheet, Sentencing Project, Washington, DC. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Incarcerated_Women_Factsheet_Sep24sp.pdf [Google Scholar]
  187. Shain K. 2012. No more shackles: AB 2530 is signed!. Strong Families Blog Sept. 28 [Google Scholar]
  188. Siegel RB. 2010. Roe's roots: the women's rights claims that engendered Roe. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 90:1875–907 [Google Scholar]
  189. Siegel SA. 2005. Justice Holmes, Buck v. Bell, and the history of equal protection. Minn. Law Rev. 90:106–43 [Google Scholar]
  190. Silliman JM, Bhattacharjee A. 2002. Policing the National Body: Sex, Race, and Criminalization Cambridge, MA: South End [Google Scholar]
  191. Silliman JM, Fried MG, Ross L, Gutiérrez ER. 2004. Undivided Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice Cambridge, MA: South End [Google Scholar]
  192. Silliman JM, King Y. 1999. Dangerous Intersections: Feminist Perspectives on Population, Environment, and Development Cambridge, MA: South End [Google Scholar]
  193. Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 1942. [Google Scholar]
  194. Smith A. 2005. Beyond pro-choice versus pro-life: women of color and reproductive justice. NWSA J. 17:119–40 [Google Scholar]
  195. Smith RJ. 2006. Family caps in welfare reform: their coercive effects and damaging consequences. Harvard J. Law Gender 29:151–200 [Google Scholar]
  196. Solinger R. 2000 (1992). Wake Up Little Susie: Single Pregnancy Before Roe v. Wade New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  197. Solinger R. 2001. Beggars and Choosers: How the Politics of Choice Shapes Adoption, Abortion, and Welfare in the United States New York: Hill & Wang [Google Scholar]
  198. Solinger R. 2005. Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America New York: NYU Press [Google Scholar]
  199. Somers MR, Roberts CNJ. 2008. Toward a new sociology of rights: a genealogy of “buried bodies” of citizenship and human rights. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 4:385–425 [Google Scholar]
  200. Sonfield A, Pollack HA. 2013. The Affordable Care Act and reproductive health: potential gains and serious challenges. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 38:373–91 [Google Scholar]
  201. Soohoo C, Albisa C, Davis MF. 2008. Bringing Human Rights Home Westport, CT: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  202. Sprague J. 2005. Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging Differences New York: AltaMira [Google Scholar]
  203. Stafan S. 2008. Accommodating families: using the Americans with Disabilities Act to keep families together. St. Louis Univ. J. Health Law Policy 2:135–76 [Google Scholar]
  204. Staggenborg S. 1986. Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: organizational and environmental opportunities and obstacles. Soc. Probl. 33:374–90 [Google Scholar]
  205. Staniec JFO, Webb NJ. 2007. Utilization of infertility services: How much does money matter?. Health Serv. Res 42:971–89 [Google Scholar]
  206. Stern A. 2005. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  207. Stone-Manista K. 2008. Protecting pregnant women: a guide to successfully challenging criminal child abuse prosecutions of pregnant drug addicts. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 99:823–56 [Google Scholar]
  208. Sussman D. 2008. Bound by injustice: challenging the use of shackles on incarcerated pregnant women. Cardozo J. Law Gender 15:477–502 [Google Scholar]
  209. Thompson C. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  210. Tone A. 2001. Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America New York: Hill & Wang [Google Scholar]
  211. Tribe LH. 1990. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes New York: Norton [Google Scholar]
  212. Tsutsui K, Whitlinger C, Lim A. 2012. International human rights law and social movements: states' resistance and civil society's insistence. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 8:367–96 [Google Scholar]
  213. Tushnet M. 1989. Rights: an essay in informal political theory. Polit. Soc. 17:403–51 [Google Scholar]
  214. Twine FW. 2011. Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  215. Van Dyke N, McCammon HJ. 2010. Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
  216. Volz V. 2006. A matter of choice: women with disabilities, sterilization, and reproductive autonomy in the twenty-first century. Women's Rights Law Rep. 27:203–16 [Google Scholar]
  217. West RL. 2009. From choice to reproductive justice: de-constitutionalizing abortion rights. Yale Law J. 118:1394–432 [Google Scholar]
  218. Williams PJ. 1991. The Alchemy of Race and Rights Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  219. Yaniv O. 2012. Weed out: More than a dozen city maternity wards regularly test new moms for marijuana and other drugs. New York Daily News Dec. 25. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/weed-dozen-city-maternity-wards-regularly-test-new-mothers-marijuana-drugs-article-1.1227292 [Google Scholar]
  220. Yuval-Davis N. 2006. Intersectionality and feminist politics. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 13:193–209 [Google Scholar]
  221. Ziegler M. 2009. The framing of a right to choose: Roe v. Wade and the changing debate on abortion law. Law Hist. Rev. 27:281–330 [Google Scholar]
  222. Ziegler M. 2012. Roe's race: the Supreme Court, population control, and reproductive justice Leg. Stud. Res. Pap. No 2012–26 St. Louis Univ., St. Louis, MO. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2148055 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134037
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error