{"id":3080,"date":"2021-10-13T14:58:16","date_gmt":"2021-10-13T14:58:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=3080"},"modified":"2021-10-13T14:58:16","modified_gmt":"2021-10-13T14:58:16","slug":"do-reason-based-abortion-bans-prevent-eugenics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2021\/10\/13\/do-reason-based-abortion-bans-prevent-eugenics\/","title":{"rendered":"Do Reason-Based Abortion Bans Prevent Eugenics?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Two judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, as well as several other U.S. Federal Court of Appeals judges have argued that reason\u2011based abortion bans are designed to prevent eugenics.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. See Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1782 (2019). &nbsp;Justice Coney Barrett, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dissented from&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_1');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3080_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Eleven states currently prohibit doctors from performing an abortion if they know that the reason the patient is seeking one is because of the predicted gender, race, and\/or disability of the fetus.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. Sex-selective abortion bans. Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee prohibit sex-selective abortion. Ariz.&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_2');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3080_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> These prohibitions apply from the moment the biological sex and genetic defects of the fetus can be identified, which is well before viability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Many are closely watching to see whether the new composition of the Court will impact its abortion jurisprudence. &nbsp;The Court\u2019s refusal to prevent the Texas law that allows private actors to enforce a pre\u2011viability prohibition on abortion has recently gained national attention.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">3<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">3. See, e.g., Adam Liptak, J. David Goodman and Sabrina Tavernise, Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won\u2019t Block Texas Abortion Law, N.Y. Times (last updated Sept.&nbsp;23, 2021),&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_3');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3080_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>&nbsp; Another case that is being closely watched is <em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>, which could permit states to enact prohibitions on pre\u2011viability abortions.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">4<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">4. See No. 19-1392: Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, et al., Supreme Court of the United&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_4');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3080_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> This Essay discusses a lesser\u2011known case through which <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> could be gutted\u2014by declaring reason\u2011based bans constitutional. &nbsp;If the Court finds that one reason\u2011based abortion ban is constitutionally permissible, it will open the door for states to destroy the fundamental right to abortion by enacting many more reasons for why abortion is impermissible.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_5');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">5<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">5. In finding reason-based abortion bans constitutional, the Court would not only open the window for other intention-based bans, but more importantly expand the scope of constitutional abortion&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_3080_1('footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_5');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3080_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To read this Essay, please click here: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Kalantry-107.1-reformatted.pdf\">Do Reason-Based Abortion Bans Prevent Eugenics?<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3080_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3080_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3080_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_3080_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See <\/em>Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1782 (2019). &nbsp;Justice Coney Barrett, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dissented from the denial of <em>en banc<\/em> review. &nbsp;Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., Inc. v. Comm\u2019r of the Ind. State Dep\u2019t of Health, 917 F.3d 532, 536 (7th Cir. 2018). &nbsp;Several judges on the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals have also argued that prohibitions on reason-based abortions prevent the elimination of certain groups of people.&nbsp; <em>See<\/em> Planned Parenthood of Ind. &amp; Ky., Inc., 917 F.3d at 536 (Judge Easterbrook dissented from the denial of <em>en banc<\/em> review); Little Rock Family Planning Services v. Rutledge, 984 F.3d 682, 694 (8th Cir. 2021) (Judges Erickson and Shepherd framed the reason-based bans as anti-eugenics states); Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, 994 F.3d 512, 536, 547, 549\u201350 (6th Cir. 2021) (<em>en banc<\/em>) (Judges Sutton, Griffin, and Bush arguing the prohibition on termination of pregnancies on the basis of Down Syndrome is an anti-eugenics statute and further a compelling state interest).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>Sex-selective abortion bans.<\/em> Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee prohibit sex-selective abortion. Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;13-3603.02 (2020); Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;20-16-1904 (2020); Kan. Stat. Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;65-6726 (2020); Miss. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;41-41-407 (2020); Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;188.038 (2020); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;90-21.121 (2020); N.D. Cent. Code \u00a7&nbsp;14-02.1-04.1 (2019); Okla. Stat. tit. 63, \u00a7&nbsp;1-731.2 (2020); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;3204 (2020); S.D. Codified Laws \u00a7&nbsp;34-23A-64 (2020); Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;39-15-217 (2020). &nbsp;<em><u>Race-selective abortion bans.<\/u><\/em> &nbsp;In Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee, the same statute forbids race-selection. Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;13-3603.02 (2020); Miss. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;41-41-407 (2020); Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;188.038 (2020); Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;39-15-217 (2020). &nbsp;<em><u>Disability-selective abortion bans<\/u><\/em>. &nbsp;Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, and Tennessee, all have also banned abortion on the basis of fetal anomaly, often specified as Down syndrome. Miss. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;41-41-407 (2020); Mo. Rev. Stat. \u00a7&nbsp;188.038 (2020); N.D. Cent. Code \u00a7&nbsp;14-02.1-04.1 (2019); Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7&nbsp;39-15-217 (2020). &nbsp;But note that Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, and Utah, have all passed additional motive-based abortion bans, but their statutes are currently permanently or temporarily enjoined by the courts (or, in Utah\u2019s case, awaiting <em>Roe v. Wade <\/em>to be overturned). &nbsp;<em>See Abortion Bans in Cases of Sex or Race Selection or Genetic Anomaly<\/em>, Guttmacher Inst. (last updated Jan.&nbsp;2, 2021), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/www.guttmacher.org\/state-policy\/explore\/abortion-bans-cases-sex-or-race-selection-or-genetic-anomaly#<\/span> [<span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/YX4V-87DT].<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_3');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_3\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See, e.g., <\/em>Adam Liptak, J. David Goodman and Sabrina Tavernise,<em> Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won\u2019t Block Texas Abortion Law<\/em>, N.Y. Times (last updated Sept.&nbsp;23, 2021), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2021\/09\/01\/us\/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html<\/span> [<span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/T36Y-VNFH].<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_4');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_4\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See No. 19-1392: Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, et al.<\/em>, Supreme Court of the United States (updated Sept.&nbsp;24, 2021), <span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/19-1392.html<\/span> [<span class=\"footnote_url_wrap\">https:\/\/perma.cc\/C8C7-RLN7].<\/span> <\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_3080_1_5');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_3080_1_5\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">In finding reason-based abortion bans constitutional, the Court would not only open the window for other intention-based bans, but more importantly expand the scope of constitutional abortion restrictions far beyond the viability standards established in<em> Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.<\/em><\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_3080_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3080_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3080_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_3080_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3080_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_3080_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_3080_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_3080_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3080_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_3080_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_3080_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3080_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_3080_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_3080_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Essay discusses a lesser\u2011known case through which Roe v. Wade could be gutted\u2014by declaring reason\u2011based bans constitutional. \u00a0If the Court finds that one reason\u2011based abortion ban is constitutionally permissible, it will open the door for states to destroy the fundamental right to abortion by enacting many more reasons for why abortion is impermissible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,47],"tags":[108,263,296,553,580,581],"class_list":["post-3080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essay","category-online","tag-abortion","tag-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization","tag-eugenics","tag-reason-based-abortion-bans","tag-roe-v-wade","tag-roe-v-wade-2"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}