Search

Recently imposed reproductive rights restrictions have triggered widespread pro-choice protests in countries like Poland and the U.S. This study, conducted online in Poland following the 22 October 2020 decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal to strengthen restrictions on legal access to abortion, investigated the motivations of 939 Poles (55% women) to participate in pro-choice protests. We examined how different aspects of gender collective self-esteem and feminist identification were associated with reactance to the freedom restrictions imposed by the abortion ban and with engagement in pro-choice protests among women and men. We found that for both genders, weaker gender identification was associated with higher feminist identification, greater reactance to the abortion ban, and increased involvement in pro-choice protests. However, we observed gender differences in the motivations to participate. Women who perceived themselves as valued members of their gender group, had negative personal views about their gender or felt their gender was undervalued by society, were more likely to engage in pro-choice activism. Men who held negative personal views about their gender or felt their gender was valued by society were more likely to engage in pro-choice protests. This study adds novel predictors to the literature on engagement in pro-choice collective action, offering practical insights into which aspects of gender collective self-esteem should be targeted to enhance feminist identification and support for the pro-choice movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Religious engagement can foster either democratic or illiberal views among adherents. Some religious institutions attempt to mobilize believers against abortion rights. For these believers, when does religion mobilize pro-choice protest participation? I test three pathways by which a prescriptive norm of pro-life protest participation might mobilize believers: general religiosity, hierarchical pressure from religious leaders, and pressure from fellow parishioners. Using semi-structured interviews with Polish anti-abortion organizers and an original, pre-registered survey experiment of Polish Catholics, I show that religiosity does not mobilize anti-abortion activism. Instead, religious group engagement powerfully drives pro-life protest. Hierarchical pressures from religious leaders and group pressures from fellow parishioners only increase the likelihood that believers protest against abortion for highly engaged parishioners, but not less-engaged parishioners. Further, religious group engagement levels fully mediate these relationships. Thus, hierarchical and social norms impact individuals' protest propensity to the extent that they are deeply embedded in a tightly knit social group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the controversial itinerary of Harvey Karman and his development in the 1970s of a manual vacuum abortion method which promised a simpler alternative to traditional methods. It highlights Karman's role, often overlooked in abortion rights narratives, as he navigated the transition from illegal to legal abortion, engaging with feminist collectives, doctors and population controllers. Drawing on diverse sources, it examines Karman's efforts to promote his devices and his complex position within medical and feminist circles. The article argues that post‐1972 tension between Karman and feminist activists reveals the gendered alliance dynamics of the abortion movement before and just after Roe v. Wade (1973). It also shows how these tensions encouraged feminist groups to redefine their own practices and led to the delineation of the boundaries of self‐help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This text examines the global movement against "gender ideology" and its connection to various political movements. It discusses how feminist and queer theories have challenged traditional notions of gender and sex, leading to a backlash from religious and political forces. The article explores the rise of the anti-gender movement worldwide, linking it to economic insecurity and populist rhetoric. It highlights the targeting of LGBTQ individuals, feminists, and gender activists as enemies of the state. The article also explores the role of social media in amplifying and spreading anti-gender sentiments. It concludes by discussing the resistance against the anti-gender movement, including a new wave of feminist and queer resistance that rejects elitist liberal feminism and embraces populism. The text emphasizes successful resistance strategies such as solidarity, coalition-building, and acts of care and kindness. It concludes with poems that highlight the power of art in creating a more feminist and queer future. [Extracted from the article]

This document provides brief biographical information about various contributors to the South Atlantic Quarterly. The contributors come from diverse backgrounds and have expertise in fields such as political science, sociology, human rights, reproductive justice, and international relations. Their research interests include topics such as empire, racism, anti-colonialism, transnationalism, gender, sexuality, and health. The contributors have published extensively in academic journals and other publications, and their work covers a wide range of issues and perspectives. [Extracted from the article]

In this case study, we propose a network analysis approach to map social movements through an intersectional feminist lens. We aim to gain a more in-depth understanding of movements' network structures to examine the roles and relationships of movement actors, the flow of resources between them, and potential areas of collaboration and conflict. By incorporating Social Network Analysis (SNA) techniques and visually mapping dynamics within social movements, this approach can assess the significance of small actors in creating change and stresses the need for their perspectives to be heard. Furthermore, our methodology adopts a feminist intersectional framework that recognizes the role of different identities in shaping the movement and its actors. To demonstrate the practical application of this approach, we examined the movement for the right to abortion in Mexico between September and December 2021. Our multi-step process included (1) designing a survey tool adapted to the context of the movement, (2) collecting and analyzing survey responses on movement actors' relationships and interactions, including their priorities, activities, needs, risks, and challenges, (3) visualizing the network using SNA techniques that account for the complexity and diversity of the movement, (4) interpreting the findings through insights collected in semi-structured interviews and validation meetings with key movement actors, and (5) implementing safety and security guidelines to safeguard the identity of individuals whose activities could put them at risk of suffering institutional, emotional, and physical violence. Our case study offers valuable insights that not only encourage the integration of feminist and intersectional perspectives into data collection processes but also provide a roadmap for accompanying social movements and supporting meaningful and contextually responsive activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the impact of the Dobbs decision on student engagement in reproductive justice issues and the importance of teaching abortion politics in a global context. It emphasizes the significance of feminist solidarities and cross-country comparisons in understanding reproductive justice, challenging assumptions, and hierarchies in feminist organizing. The document includes academic articles and resources on reproductive rights, abortion, and feminism, discussing topics such as safe abortion practices in Uruguay, abortion funds post-Roe v. Wade, and the framing of abortion rights in Argentina. It also addresses the need to decenter whiteness in education and the challenges of forced parenthood and failing safety nets in post-Roe America. [Extracted from the article]

The article delves into the complexities of reproductive justice, highlighting decolonial, queer, and anti-racist organizing efforts in Minnesota. It emphasizes the importance of coalitional solidarity across marginalized communities and addresses issues such as reproductive health disparities, anti-Indigenous and anti-Black violence, and state violence's impact on reproductive autonomy. The text also explores the intersectionality of reproductive justice with broader social issues like clean water access, gender autonomy, and mutual aid networks. Additionally, it discusses transgender parenting, the intersection of trans rights and reproductive rights, and the significance of reproductive justice in addressing racism and the experiences of Black, Indigenous, and mixed-race individuals in parenting. Contributions from scholars and activists with diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous curriculum development and advocacy for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW), are featured in the article. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Teaching Reproductive Justice" by Sarah E. Chinn and Kimberly Mutcherson explores the concept of reproductive justice, which centers marginalized people, particularly women of color. It delves into the history of the movement, highlighting the intersectional experiences of Black women and other women of color. The text emphasizes the importance of bodily autonomy as a human right and addresses various reproductive health issues faced by marginalized communities. Additionally, it discusses the recent challenges to abortion rights in the United States and the ongoing fight for reproductive freedom. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: In 2018, Ireland conducted a referendum, ultimately supporting the legalisation of abortion. The views of religious minority groups can go unheard 'by an insensitive majority' in national cultural debates. This study explores female Muslim Irish university students' perspectives on abortion and the impact of the 2018 Irish abortion debate on their sense of belonging within Ireland. Methods: Ten female Muslim university students completed semi-structured interviews. The interview comprised seven open-ended questions examining perspectives on abortion and a sense of national belonging. A thematic analysis was carried out on the data. Results: Six major themes emerged: (1) specific circumstances, (2) Islam, (3) family, (4) misuse of new laws, (5) stable sense of national belonging, (6) consequences of historical abortion legislation. Participants were largely supportive of the legal changes. Participants indicated that their sense of national belonging might have been affected if their religious beliefs had conflicted with the referendum outcome. Conclusions: Participants largely supported the legalisation of abortion in Ireland, provided that the new laws aligned with their Islamic beliefs. The research indicated the referendum did not affect young Muslim women's sense of belonging in Ireland. Policy Implications: Many national debates on social issues focus on winning majority support. This research highlighted the importance of canvasing and reflecting on the perspectives of people from minorities in order to reinforce a sense of larger political belonging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After Dobbs, religion, commonly seen as an argument against abortion, has been used to argue for the right to choose. In July 2022, a synagogue sued Florida, asserting that its ban on abortion after fifteen weeks violated Article 1, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits the penalization of free expression of religion. In September 2022, the ACLU argued that the state's abortion ban violated Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And in October 2022, three Jewish women sued the state of Kentucky, alleging that its abortion ban violated the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This Note provides a guide to the merits and challenges of the argument that an abortion ban violates a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Although this Note focuses on how Jewish plaintiffs can raise such claims, the arguments outlined could be raised by individuals of multiple faiths. This Note contributes to a growing debate about religious arguments for the right to an abortion. And it is the first paper to outline how religious freedom claims to obtaining an abortion might fare under state RFRAs. The approach to RFRA outlined in this paper lays the groundwork for a rights-advancing framework of religious exercise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study expands on the current debate about post-socialist civil society and social movements, specifically in Croatia. Taking the strategic practices of the Croatian feminist movement in relation to the right to abortion in the last decade as the research unit, it employs the conception of post-socialist civil societies, focuses on the practices of civil society, and differentiates between contentious and compliant practices regardless of the form of organisation or engagement. The study examines whether the strategic practices of the Croatian feminist movement have changed in the last decade and, if so, which factors have played the most significant role. The study is based on a critical content analysis of interviews with the actors themselves and draws on their interpretations of the strategic practices. It finds that the Croatian feminist movement has, in the last decade, rethought the dominant compliant strategic practices inherent in the nonprofit sector and the organisations within it and has turned more towards contentious practices. The research described in the paper finds that there are three dominant factors behind the rethinking of the strategic practice: two external - the growing prominence of the conservative movement and the new expected abortion law - and one internal: a generational shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on employer-provided coverage for abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned federal protections for abortion rights. Topics include the legal background of employer-based healthcare, the implications of the Dobbs decision for employer policies, and the structuring of travel vouchers and healthcare coverage for abortion services.

The United States has entered a new constitutional era where substantive due process, under attack by the Supreme Court itself, can no longer be viewed as a solid foundation for the securing of personal privacy rights. In a post- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization world, the right to personal privacy, long understood to be protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process Clauses, is in need of a new doctrinal home. The evisceration of modern substantive due process in the context of abortion rights implicates and endangers LGBTQ+ rights and other personal privacy rights as well. As such, it is essential to identify alternative potential constitutional sources of protection for personal privacy and relationships. This Article begins by describing various responses to Dobbs in the aftermath of the decision's release. In the first year following the Supreme Court's stripping away of substantive due process protections for abortion rights, scholars have proposed various ways to either preserve substantive due process or to establish alternative doctrinal homes for the protection of personal privacy rights. Such responses to Dobbs have often reflected concerns that even beyond reproductive rights, liberty protections for autonomy and privacy in our most personal relationships and life choices, including those of members of same-sex couples and other less traditionally protected relationships, are also in danger. One such alternative doctrinal home for personal privacy is the freedom of intimate association. This Article describes the potential that the freedom of intimate association offers as a safe haven for the right to personal privacy, particularly for familial, romantic, and sexual intimate relationships of same-sex couples and others. The Article documents the evolution of the freedom of intimate association as a hybrid right largely grounded in the First Amendment, from older privacy cases to the first case explicitly naming the freedom of intimate association, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, and beyond. This Article explains how intimate association rights are distinct from, and provide greater constitutional protections than, the expressive associational rights that have been usurped by businesses seeking to deny public accommodations to LGBTQ+ people and using the First Amendment to do so, including in the 2023 free speech case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. That said, the freedom of intimate association's evolution has included splintered interpretations and application over the years, including as to the appropriate role of tradition and history in determining the extent of protections for intimate relationships. This Article proposes a repositioning of tradition along with a reclaiming of intimacy itself to pave the path for future cases in which LGBTQ+ people and others may successfully claim the strong constitutional protections to which they are entitled for their personal relationships, through the long-neglected freedom of intimate association doctrine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After fifty years Of pro-choice advocacy groups abroad looking to the United States as a beacon Of hope and a guidebook for how to achieve similarly expansive abortion liberties, the United States abdicated its position as a global leader on abortion rights with its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. In contrast, three of Latin America's four most populous nations-Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia-have expanded abortion protections in the past three years. The victories in all three countries were linked to a grassroots abortion-rights movement known as the "Marea Verde" or "Green Wave" that has been advocating for change across Latin America. Several comparative law and policy studies have focused on the groundbreaking changes introduced in the "Green Wave" countries and sought insights that might be transferrable to the United States. These works have often focused on the grassroots tactics and constitutional reasoning adopted in those nations. This Note offers a novel contribution to this literature by taking an alternative analytical angle and focusing on an underappreciated source of lessons from the "Green Wave" nations-not the grassroots-organizing tactics and legal reasoning, but the legal language, as expressed through law and policy. Ultimately, the analysis here reveals a remarkable rhetorical progressivism in the "Green Wave, with all three nations demonstrating a commitment to an essential premise Of this piece: although abortion is indeed a "women's issue," it is not exclusively such-it could, and should, be recognized as a transgender issue as well. This Note argues that the United States has much to learn from the abortion-rights rhetoric of Latin America's "Green Wave" nations. Whether as a reflection of what this Note calls the "inconceivability fallacy"-the failure to recognize that persons other than cisgender women can get pregnant-or as a strategic decision that eschews gender-inclusive pregnancy language for other reasons, it is clear that transgender, nonbinary, and other genderdiverse persons with a capacity for pregnancy remain largely invisible across some of the United States' most notable judicial, legislative, and executive statements on abortion rights. This Note demonstrates why this elision is troubling and points to the "Green Wave" nations as proof of an inspiring fact: change is not only necessary; it is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that Argentina's recent feminist "green wave" emerged from the political militancy of working-class women responding to the economic violence of the 1990s neoliberal reforms and the nation's financial collapse in 2001. The first section details the gendered experience of the 1990s neoliberal crisis from the "feminization" of the workforce, the rise in child mortality due to malnutrition, and, as a result, the increase in deaths from clandestine abortions. The second section details the development of gendered consciousness among working-class women through the formation of espacios de mujeres (women's spaces) after 2001. The espacios allowed piqueteras (unemployed women) to organize against patriarchal violence and gendered marginalization in their homes and organizations. The third section examines how working-class women's participation in the yearly National Women's Encounter transformed it from a small women's gathering to a conference that brought together social movements under a shared feminist abortion rights banner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstinence-only sex education, a curriculum that teaches abstinence is the most effective form of birth control, is the dominant and most funded sex education in the United States. This is despite research that shows it is not effective, leaves students uninformed, and negatively reinforces gender stereotypes. In comparison, research suggests that comprehensive sex education, especially when evidence-based and culturally responsive, does encourage safe sex and has the potential to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to abortion. By leaving abortion regulation up to the states, Dobbs harms students with unwanted pregnancies. However, Dobbs is also predicted to harm students in another way: as a signal of incoming threats to the little comprehensive sex education that does exist in schools. In 2022, since Dobbs, there are already calls from Republican lawmakers at the state level to weaken or ban sex education. In response, this note argues that implementing comprehensive sex education at the school district level is one way to address the harms caused by Dobbs. Especially inspired by the outpouring of student calls for comprehensive sex education after Dobbs, school district leaders can implement comprehensive sex education programs and, if done correctly, can defend these programs against legal challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Seminare Learned Investigations / Seminare. Poszukiwania naukowe is the property of Francis de Sales Scientific Society / Towarzystwo Naukowe Franciszka Salezego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

All judges attempt to decide cases for reasons other than politics or their own personal opinions. But finding a consistent judicial methodology is fraught with peril. Against what it sees as the hyper-textualism of strict constructionism and the unfettered discretion of living constitutionalism, originalism posits itself as the only viable way to achieve an objectively neutral interpretation of the law. This is certainly the stance taken by the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which claims that the Constitution is silent on abortion and that therefore no corresponding right to abortion exists. But there can be different forms of originalism. This article introduces principle originalism as an equally objective and superior theory of judicial interpretation to the meaning of originalism advanced by the Dobbs majority. Drawing from the jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, principle originalism remains grounded in the Constitution as construed at the time of the Founding, but it interprets that semantic context at a higher level than meaning originalism and then uses legal precedent as a way to explain and justify the gradual evolution of the law. After exploring alternatives to meaning originalism advanced in two prominent cases interpreting Title VII, this article will delineate how principle originalism functions as a theory of jurisprudence. Applying this methodology to Obergefell v. Hodges and the dissent in Dobbs demonstrates principle originalism to be a better alternative to meaning originalism than strict constructionism or living constitutionalism. The public reaction to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization1 overturning the constitutionally protected right to abortion in Roe v. Wade2 and upheld in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey3 was, understandably and unsurprisingly, swift and substantial, 4 with several major newspaper editorial boards condemning the decision and its impact on women. 5 Scholars and legal experts wrote numerous opinion articles noting the stripping away of a long-held right of significant importance to many women in the United States. 6 Some commentators decried the decision as "unvarnished radicalism" and an assault on the principles of stare decisis. 7 Others saw in the Dobbs decision a co-opting of the Supreme Court by the Christian right 8 or fear for what the decision portends for American democracy. 9 Still other commentators expressed concern for what rights an increasingly political Supreme Court might erode next. 10 While the Dobbs decision did not prohibit abortion, rather returned abortion law to the provenance of the states, for those in support of maintaining abortion rights, fears about the future are well-founded. 11 About half the states have banned abortion in anticipation of the Dobbs decision, either through existing laws or through implementing trigger laws, 12 and there remains significant legal and political debate over the future of abortion law in the United States. 13 It is undeniable that this decision will have a major impact on the lives of those capable of becoming pregnant. 14 Amid this turmoil, polls show widespread disagreement with the decision in Dobbs and public preference for maintaining the right to abortion. 15 Approval of the Supreme Court has correspondingly declined. 16 However justified these reactions may be, they fall into the trap set by the majority in Dobbs. At their essence, the majority opinion and concurrences (with the arguable exception of Roberts' concurrence) all assert that the legality of abortion cannot be derived from the Constitution but rather must be secured through the political process. 17 The majority and concurring opinions claim their decisions remove politics from the judicial decision- making process by removing the courts from the resolution of a highly contested political issue. 18 This creates a problem for those that would oppose Dobbs. To argue that Dobbs was incorrectly decided by the Court because it stripped women of a fundamental right, or to argue that the majority acted politically, is itself a political argument that fails to rebut the majority opinion for several reasons. For one, if the Supreme Court has become a realm of political decisions, the unavoidable conclusion is that one side -- namely conservative anti- abortion politicians and/or justices--has prevailed politically. 19 One could argue about unfair Supreme Court appointments, but short of arguing that the decisions of the Court therefore have no legal weight, the decisions of the Supreme Court are the legally binding law of the land. And, if politicized judicial opinions are the outcome of an appointment process for justices that has become overly political, 20 that politicization is an unfortunate result of the current era in which we find ourselves. 21 The remedy would be to appoint different justices through the political process, a prospect that likely would take many years to accomplish. Even then, one could not escape the rabbit hole of judicial decisions being a battle of political wills. 22 This issue points to a more fundamental concern over the line of critique outlined above: the Justices in Dobbs, and indeed in every other decision, are not overtly deciding cases on the basis of policy23 or politics. 24 Rather, the justices are trying -- at least with respect to how their opinions are framed and argued--to decide cases like Dobbs purely on the law itself. 25 In other words, consistent with originalist principles, 26 the Dobbs majority and concurrences seek to determine the outcome of the case within the legal framework and history of abortion, i.e., solely on criteria internal to the law. 27 The problem posed for critics of Dobbs is that they cannot assert a critique of the decision on the basis of criteria external to the law -- policy implications, moral objections, public sentiment, etc. -- and expect to engage with the "internal" reasoning of the justices in the majority. Using criteria to assess the Dobbs decision that draws on outcomes or moral considerations external to internal judicial reasoning of the opinions creates legally unrebuttable positions that only reinforce the majority's position that abortion and similar issues can only be resolved politically. What is needed, then, is a jurisprudential response to the majority in Dobbs. Namely, a response that relies upon a coherent form of judicial reasoning, one internal to the law. While it may be unrealistic to anticipate swaying the opinions of the majority in Dobbs, engaging in a meaningful debate with them on their terms remains crucial because a jurisprudential response prevents being summarily disregarded as an advocate with purely external or political motives. To borrow Justice Roberts's famous phrase, if the job of a justice is "to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat,"28 then a legal theorist must aspire to be a better umpire and not a home run hitter. Only by providing a more coherent and convincing theory of judicial interpretation can one assert a meaningful response to the majority in Dobbs. This article attempts to craft such a response by advancing the concept of "principle originalism."29 This article will start with competing claims of fidelity to originalism and to Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudential legacy in the majority and dissenting opinions in Bostock v. Clayton County. 30 An examination of the history and tenets of originalism will be presented next, not just as a way of resolving this dispute but also by way of introducing principle originalism as an alternative -- a third way -- of approaching an internal perspective on law. Principle originalism, which is primarily drawn from the jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, relies upon deriving underlying legal principles from the evolution of legal doctrines through application in the common law. After articulating principle originalism as a theory of judicial interpretation, this Article will show it to have stronger jurisprudential foundations than more common conceptions of originalism by comparing the majority and concurring opinions in Dobbs to Justice Breyer's dissent along three dimensions: (1) allowing the law to evolve in a rational but constrained manner over time; 31 (2) respecting precedent and stare decisis for reasons beyond just stability of the law; 32 and (3) avoiding the fallacy that past legal understanding is more easily determined than the present. 33 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Alito ruled there is no right, under the U.S. Constitution, for a woman to have an abortion. Since then, eleven states have either enacted or activated statutes that forbid the performance of an abortion. Others may soon follow suit. This Article does not attempt to dispute the reasoning of the Dobbs decision. Instead, it asks whether the eleven state statutes, now construed as constitutionally permitted, are, in fact impermissible intrusions into the constitutionally required separation of church and state. This Article approaches this problem from both a historical and philosophical perspective. First, it uses the over 4,000-year-long history of the church-state interrelationship (including U.S. Supreme Court opinions) to define when a belief is a "religious belief." Second, using that definition, the Article engages in a careful logical analysis of the eleven statutes to argue both that they promote religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and that they do not fall under the exception the Court has carved out in Kennedy v. Bremerton. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the shortcomings of mainstream "pro-choice" narratives and their failure to effectively advocate for reproductive justice post the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It explores the inadequacies of the "pro-choice" movement, the role of settler colonial ideology in contemporary abortion restrictions, and the emergence of alternative approaches like Jane's Revenge within reproductive justice activism, emphasizing the need for a decolonial shift.

This study examines how a nontheistic organization called The Satanic Temple (TST) fights for religious freedom for its members, particularly in abortion rights in the US. Ronald Inglehart's secularization framework is employed to conduct a more in-depth analysis of this group's efforts to voice religious freedom for its members, particularly on the abortion issue. Therefore, this study also provides an in-depth examination of TST's strategies regarding the abortion issue. The finding shows that TST has far-reaching implications not only for their efforts against the new abortion law but also for the group's presence amidst the religious majority environment of the US. Furthermore, another finding also reveals that TST's efforts in legal proceedings have yet to be treated fairly. TST has a strong legal argument because TST members interpret their fundamental tenets and have an abortion ritual. However, solid legal opinions are not always sufficient. In response to legal challenges, judges have shown reluctance to evaluate Satanist claims on their merits, preferring to invent procedural criticisms. The ruling did not hinder TST as much as it prevented the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we emerge into a post-Roe landscape spurred by state-level "heartbeat bills," the stakes are high for rhetorical scholars to identify rhetorical topoi that have the capacity to intervene in legislative acts of reproductive injustice. Already, feminist rhetorical scholars have determined the rhetorical limits of topoi derived from legal, medical, and frameworks. Thus, I build upon Kelly Pender's "rhetoric of care" to theorize what I name reproductive justice rhetorics of care, rhetorical topoi that can advance reproductive justice (RJ). Importantly, I view RJ as a contingent telos -- not an analytic -- to which both radical (protest) and reform (institutional) rhetoric can contribute. I argue that Georgia state Senator Jen Jordan's dissent of HB 481, Georgia's heartbeat bill, offers three RJ rhetorics of care from within the constraints of institutional dissent: women as the fiduciaries of life, reproduction as an embodied process, and mother -- reclaimed and reframed. This analysis underscores the importance of identifying the rhetorical strategies invoked by state legislators to challenge reproductive injustice, given that abortion access will now be controlled by states post-Dobbs. Further, my analytical approach to finding topoi that move toward a contingent telos has implications for additional justiceoriented movements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Sara Liao b (saraliao@psu.edu) is a media scholar and feminist at Penn State University, studying and teaching the intersection of gender politics, media cultures, digital platforms, the state-market complex, and the political and cultural implications thereof. B Ruth Zurbriggen b is professor of primary education and educational sciences, specializing in gender studies. B Bahar Aldanmaz b is a PhD student in sociology at Boston University with a focus on global health, development, and menstrual justice. B Allison J. Pugh b is professor of sociology and chair of the Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at the University of Virginia. [Extracted from the article]

Beyond the controversy on women’s right to elect an abortion, in Dobbs v. Jackson there is a deep yet hidden disagreement over the Court’s source of legitimacy. The majority judgment speaks of the Court’s source of legitimacy in terms of expertise, while the dissenting opinion speaks of it in terms of public support. My starting point for exposing this disagreement is the divergence between the accurate quote of Alexander Hamilton’s famous dictum from the Federalist No. 78 in Justice Alito’s majority opinion, and dissenting Justice Breyer’s paraphrase of the same dictum in the Dobbs oral arguments. The paraphrased version replaced Hamilton’s saying that without the sword and the purse, all the Court has is “judgment” with the saying that all the Court has is “public confidence.” For many decades, both conservative and progressive justices have built an entire jurisprudence that positioned the paraphrase of this dictum as its cornerstone. This seemingly minor paraphrasing captures a profound shift in understanding the Court’s source of legitimacy from understanding it in terms of expertise to understanding it in terms of public support. This shift has led to the Court’s continuous undermining of the traditional divide between law as the domain of reason, and politics as the domain of will. The traditional divide ensured that after going through the political process of passing a law, in the realm of legality, reason (or “judgment” in Hamilton’s terms) reigned supreme. However, starting in the 1930s, the ability to measure public support of the Supreme Court in public opinion polls made legitimacy-understood in terms of public support-the metric for assessing the Court and its judgements. Subsequently, correctness in constitutional law has become more and more dependent on public acceptance rather than the issue of reasoned legal argumentation. Alito’s approach in Dobbs reverts to Hamilton’s original understanding of the Court’s source of legitimacy and has the potential to serve as the starting point for reversing the dangerous trend of eroding the divide between law and politics. To succeed in re-establishing this divide, the Court will have to reconsider other precedents beginning with Heller. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health resonated with the citizenry in the United States—either as a horrible stripping away of fundamental bodily autonomy or as a resurgence of protecting life at its most vulnerable stage. Though its holding is clear enough, the method by which the majority arrived there is both obscure and far-reaching. This Note sets forth the substantive due process analysis in Dobbs, critiques that analysis, and analyzes it through the lens of constitutional normal science. It then contrasts this lens with the doctrine of stare decisis. At a minimum, the Dobbs decision represents an analytical fissure within the reproductive rights doctrine. At a maximum, that fissure spreads across the entire spectrum of substantive due process rights. It is best described as a kind of constitutional abnormal science that attempts to overrule Obergefell and its methodology for only a subset of the unenumerated—but still fundamental—rights protected by Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process: namely, abortion rights. The Court's justifications, that abortion is doctrinally unique and that Roe was “egregiously wrong” when decided, are unpersuasive in the face of both stare decisis and the more doctrinally consistent arguments for or against the abortion precedent before Dobbs. The paradigm slippage Dobbs manifests is serious and only tenable if one takes at face value these flawed arguments about the 49 years of case law it tossed aside. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the theme of reproductive justice in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work. It addresses the plight of Gaza and expresses solidarity with the people of Palestine. It emphasizes the importance of reproductive justice, encompassing topics such as reproductive health, rights, and justice.

The article focuses on the concept of reproductive justice in Aotearoa (New Zealand), emphasizing its origins in addressing the limitations of the reproductive rights movement. It highlights the impact of colonization on the sexual and reproductive health of Indigenous and diasporic people. It discusses the importance of equitable access to sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception and abortion.

The battle to protect abortion rights in the United States has not been this fierce in fifty years. From the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision to a precipitously growing number of states passing draconian laws that drastically limit--and in some states, entirely ban--access to safe and legal abortion services, reproductive freedom is under siege at every turn. The current assault on reproductive freedom has had devastating consequences for all people, but most acutely for historically marginalized communities, including people with disabilities. Critically, this attack most adversely affects people who live at the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities or statuses. Nonetheless, when disability is invoked in discourse concerning abortion, it is typically done to either support or oppose abortions based on fetal disability diagnoses. By framing disability and abortion only in the context of disabilityselective abortions, activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers fail to recognize that it is actual disabled people--not hypothetical fetuses with disability diagnoses--who are harmed by abortion restrictions. Indeed, disabled people disproportionately experience pervasive and persistent disadvantages that increase their need for abortion services. They also experience considerable structural, legal, and institutional barriers that already put access to safe and legal abortion out of reach for many. In response, the Article proposes a blueprint to help activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers as they imagine the next steps in the battle to protect abortion rights in a way that fully includes people with disabilities. First, the Article situates the current battle to protect abortion rights within the social and institutional contexts that propagate reproductive oppression of people with disabilities by examining how reproduction has been weaponized over time to subjugate disabled people as well as presenting contemporary examples of such injustices. Thereafter, it explores disabled people's unique needs for abortion services and the myriad ways they are disproportionately and adversely affected by restrictions on abortion rights. Next, the Article presents disability reproductive justice, a jurisprudential and legislative framework, and its application to the fight for abortion rights. Finally, drawing from disability reproductive justice, the Article suggests normative and transformative legal and policy solutions for challenging the current assault on abortion rights and its impact on disabled people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the historical evolution of abortion rights and laws in the United States and Australia, examining the shifts in legal arguments, women's rights, and reproductive justice over time. Topics discussed include the early criminalization of abortion, legal reform efforts, and the impact of landmark court decisions like Roe v Wade and key Australian rulings.