reproductive rights research topics

Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice

Welcome to the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice ! We are  a multidisciplinary research center dedicated to issues of reproduction and designed to support law and policy solutions by bridging the academic-advocate divide.

The Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley School of Law (CRRJ) fuels law and policy solutions by connecting people and ideas across the academic-advocate divide. We seek to secure reproductive rights and advance reproductive justice by furthering research and scholarship, bolstering law and policy advocacy efforts, and shaping academic and public discourse.

As the first think tank of its kind, CRRJ serves as a resource, liaison, and partner to reproductive rights and justice organizations throughout the country. The Center provides a physical, intellectual, and virtual hub where advocates and scholars can cross-pollinate ideas, and collaborate on projects. Our programs nurture a new generation of leaders who can meet current crises in reproductive access and care, and cast wide influence over decisions, institutions, and systems for decades to come.

CRRJ Welcomes Arneta Rogers

We are delighted to announce the arrival of CRRJ’s new Executive Director, Arneta Rogers. Rogers comes to Berkeley Law from the ACLU of Northern California, serving most recently as Director of the organization’s Gender, Sexuality, and Reproductive Justice group. 

Rogers admits that it’s a challenging time in the reproductive rights and justice field: “But I feel excited and energized about the opportunity to join CRRJ. With the fall of  Roe  and proliferation of harmful and dangerous abortion restrictions throughout the country, there has rightfully been significant emphasis on protecting abortion rights and abortion access. But abortion access is just one prong of the core tenets of reproductive justice, a framework that encompasses the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities. We have a really broad mandate in terms of what we can address at the Center utilizing this lens that also calls on us to dismantle oppressive systems rooted in white supremacy and cis-hetpatriarchy.” 

At the ACLU, Rogers advocated not only to protect abortion rights, but to ensure that pregnant people aren’t investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated for ending a pregnancy or experiencing a pregnancy loss. They also argued that poverty isn’t “neglect” and shouldn’t trigger mandatory reporting to the family regulation system. Rogers sought, in addition, to advance birth equity by funding doulas in communities with high rates of negative birth outcomes, including California’s jails, and helped build a coalition of advocates and directly impacted community members working to decriminalize sex work in California.

At Berkeley Law, Rogers looks forward to drawing on the “combustible energy” of students. “I want CRRJ to be a political home for students who are fired up about reproductive justice and rebuking historical and current attacks to right to bodily autonomy. The Center can be a place where students can meet and work with other lawyers, advocates, organizers, and individuals with lived experiences to generate ideas and meaningful solutions to the significant challenges we are facing towards achieving reproductive freedom” Rogers explains.

Rogers is an ideal match for the Center, says Professor Kathryn Abrams, CRRJ’s Faculty Director. “Arneta’s breadth of vision aligns beautifully with the Center’s history and mission. They bring more than a decade of experience advocating for the reproductive autonomy and self-determined family formation of communities at the margins, and forging coalitions for change, in collaboration with those directly affected. Arneta has also been a skilled and consistent mentor to younger lawyers.”

Rogers will kick off programming for the semester on February 20, by introducing their former ACLU colleague Faride Perez-Aucar, who will talk about reproductive health in California jails. A talk by Melissa Ayala, who argued the case that decriminalized abortion in Mexico, will follow in March. 

“I’m looking forward to relaunching a comprehensive and inclusive agenda for CRRJ that centers the experiences and needs of communities on the margins that are bearing the brunt of the harm, not only of abortion restrictions, but in attacks on gender-affirming care, criminalization, punishment and surveillance through the family regulation system,” Rogers says. “We will elevate the scholarship of BIPOC thought leaders, movement practitioners, and students through the Center. Hopefully we can have some really dynamic and intersectional conversations that will help us move the needle forward.” 

Please join us in welcoming CRRJ’s new Executive Director to Berkeley Law!

To stay informed about our progress and pursuits, f ollow us on Twitter , and stay tuned for our upcoming newsletter.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Preserving the reproductive rights of girls and women in the era of COVID-19 – the need for a least restrictive solution

Mary a. ott.

Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics (IUPUI), 410 West 10 th Street, HS 1001, Indianapolis, IN 46202

Caitlin Bernard

Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine

Introduction

Fairchild and colleagues assert that while “equal” on the surface, the rapidly implemented, society-wide public health restrictions enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic veil harsh inequities ( Fairchild et al. 2020 ). These inequities are particularly apparent in the deep erosion of sexual and reproductive health rights for women and girls.

The Human Right to Reproductive Health

Human rights are fundamental, and affirm the dignity and worth of all human beings. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination, and these rights must be universally protected. All individuals have a basic human right to the highest attainable health, including sexual and reproductive health ( UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 1979 ). For women and girls, this includes the rights to choose a partner, control their fertility, and birth safely, and to access the necessary information and tools to do so without coercion ( UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 1979 ). States have an obligation to provide for these rights, especially in times when these rights are at risk. These rights to sexual and reproductive health extend to minor adolescents, and include the rights to access sexual and reproductive health information and services, to determine and consent to one’s own care, and to have that care provided in a confidential environment ( Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2016 ).

Equal ≠ Equitable

While the COVID-19 public health restrictions apply equally across genders, consideration has not been made to how they disproportionately burden girls and women. Similar to past public health and humanitarian crises, public health restrictions, coupled with social and economic stressors, are leading to increasing reports of gender-based violence ( Wenham et al. 2020 ). Access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) has been one of the most effective public health interventions to reduce adolescent pregnancy. Now, shifts from in-person care to telemedicine, coupled with marked reductions in access to safety-net facilities such as federally qualified health centers and Title X funded clinics, have markedly reduced access to LARC. Confidentiality is a cornerstone to adolescent reproductive health care, and restrictions on confidentiality frequently translate into less disclosure, less access, and poorer reproductive health outcomes ( Ford et al. 2004 ). The restrictions in movement and reliance on telemedicine are hurting adolescents’ access to confidential care, as many are sheltering in place with families, making it nearly impossible to guarantee confidentiality on a telephone or video visit. The virtual elimination of well-child and well-woman care has removed any opportunity to screen and treat for sexual abuse, gender-based violence, sexually transmitted infections, and contraceptive needs. Under the guise of restricting “non-essential” care, states have restricted or even eliminated access to abortion, pushing women and girls to make the decision to travel far from home to seek care or continue an unwanted pregnancy ( Jones et al. 2020 ). Taken together, these policies effectively erode reproductive rights through denial of the access and tools needed to realize this right.

As Fairchild and colleagues note, the COVID pandemic policies have been enacted in a society characterized by profound inequalities, and are being applied in a manner that is profoundly unequal ( Fairchild et al. 2020 ). For every restrictive sexual and reproductive health policy, the effects are more marked among women and girls from minoritized communities. Prior to the COVID pandemic, African American, Latinx, and immigrant women already experienced reproductive health disparities. Because these girls and women from minoritized communities are more dependent upon safety-net facilities, and more likely to experience economic hardships as a result of COVID-19 public health policies ( Poteat et al. 2020 ), we expect to see widening of existing health disparities.

Least Restrictive Solutions

Fairchild and colleagues highlight the interconnectedness of public health and human rights, and challenge the assumption that the population health always trumps individual rights ( Fairchild et al. 2020 ). A least restrictive solution presents a way forward, to balance public safety and human rights, preserving necessary care and ensuring equity. A least restrictive solution to a public health emergency has three key components: (1) the moral importance of human rights; (2) that human rights can be limited to ensure the health and well-being of others; and (3) if rights are limited, then the least restrictive approach should be used ( Ott and Santelli 2019 ).

Public health measures do not need to be all-or-nothing. In all cases, ensuring the least restrictive approach means identifying the barriers to access created by COVID policies, and creating ways to improve access, while maintaining important public health policies, like shelter-in-place restrictions. For contraception, a least restrictive solution might involve expanding over-the-counter, pharmacy, and telemedicine options, with particular attention to access for adolescents ( Williams et al. 2018 ). Abortion procedures are time-sensitive, and have been identified as an essential service in a pandemic setting, given their ability to prevent far worse pregnancy outcomes ( Robinson et al. 2020 ). Increasing access to evidence-based “no touch” and medication abortion through telemedicine may be an important way to protect patients and providers under quarantine ( Raymond et al. 2020 ). At the same time, it is absolutely necessary to ensure access to in-clinic abortions as an “essential” service, similar to other time-sensitive and low-resource procedures, in order to preserve the right to reproductive health ( Robinson et al. 2020 ).

For girls’ and women’s sexual and reproductive health rights, COVID-19 policies are truly “vexing, veiled, and inequitable.” An ethical solution forward must find the least restrictive approach to containing the pandemic while preserving basic rights to sexual and reproductive health.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This publication was made possible, in part, with support from the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute funded, in part by Award Number UL1 RR025761 from the National Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Contributor Information

Mary A. Ott, Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics (IUPUI), 410 West 10 th Street, HS 1001, Indianapolis, IN 46202.

Caitlin Bernard, Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine.

• Fairchild A, Gostin L and Bayer R (2020). Vexing, Veiled, and Inequitable: Social Distancing and the “Rights” Divide in the Age of COVID-19 . The American Journal of Bioethics : 1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ford C, English A and Sigman G (2004). Confidential Health Care for Adolescents: position paper for the society for adolescent medicine . J Adolesc Health 35 : 160–167. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones RK, Lindberg L and Witwer E (2020). COVID-19 Abortion Bans and Their Implications for Public Health . Perspect Sex Reprod Health . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2016). Committee on the Rights of the Child: General Comment on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence . Geneva, Switzerland, United Nations; CRC/GC/2003/4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ott MA and Santelli JS (2019). Sexually Transmitted Infections, Public Health, and Ethics The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics . Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP and Kass NE. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poteat T, Millett G, Nelson LE and Beyrer C (2020). Understanding COVID-19 Risks and Vulnerabilities among Black Communities in America: The Lethal Force of Syndemics . Ann Epidemiol . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raymond EG, Grossman D, Mark A, Upadhyay UD, Dean G, Creinin MD, Coplon L, Perritt J, Atrio JM, Taylor D and Gold M (2020). Commentary: No-test medication abortion: A sample protocol for increasing access during a pandemic and beyond . Contraception 101 : 361–366. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Robinson EF, Moulder JK, Zerden ML, Miller AM and Zite NB (2020). Call to Action: Preserving and Advocating for Essential Care for Women during the COVID-19 Pandemic . Am J Obstet Gynecol . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1979). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women New York, NY, United Nations. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenham C, Smith J and Morgan R (2020). COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak . Lancet 395 : 846–848. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams RL, Meredith AH and Ott MA (2018). Expanding adolescent access to hormonal contraception: an update on over-the-counter, pharmacist prescribing, and web-based telehealth approaches . Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 30 : 458–464. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Articles on Reproductive rights

Displaying 1 - 20 of 122 articles.

Fetal personhood rulings could nullify a pregnant patient’s wishes for end-of -life care

Jessica L. Waters , American University and Madelyn Adams , American University

Abortion drug access could be limited by Supreme Court − if the court decides anti-abortion doctors can, in fact, challenge the FDA

Naomi Cahn , University of Virginia and Sonia Suter , George Washington University

Immaculate: how a nunsploitation film tunes into women’s anger over misogyny and oppression

Harriet Fletcher , Anglia Ruskin University

I’m a political scientist, and the Alabama Supreme Court’s IVF ruling turned me into a reproductive-rights refugee

Spencer Goidel , Auburn University

Demography and reproductive rights are environmental issues: Insights from sub-Saharan  Africa

Céline Delacroix , L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Will abortion be the issue that swings the 2024 US presidential election?

Prudence Flowers , Flinders University

Abortion rights victories show this issue is unlikely to fade in 2024 elections − 3 things to know

Nicole Huberfeld , Boston University and Linda C. McClain , Boston University

As Ohio and other states decide on abortion, anti-abortion activists look to rebrand themselves as not religious

Anne Whitesell , Miami University

White men have controlled women’s reproductive rights throughout American history – the post-Dobbs era is no different

Rodney Coates , Miami University

With ‘Goodbye Mary,’ Molly Tuttle extends country music’s lineage of reproductive rights songs to the post-Roe  era

William Nash , Middlebury

Abortion is a workplace issue: How managers can support employee access to reproductive health care

Jennifer Dimoff , L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa ; Jacquelyn Brady , San José State University ; Mikaila Ortynsky , L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa , and Stephanie Gilbert , Cape Breton University

One year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, abortion care has become a patchwork of confusing state laws that deepen existing inequalities

Heidi Collins Fantasia , UMass Lowell

Abortion prison sentence shows the law is focused on foetuses – why that’s dangerous for women

Emma Milne , Durham University

Woman jailed over abortion – an expert on what UK law actually says and what needs to change

Claire Pierson , University of Liverpool

How food insecurity affects people’s rights to choose whether or not to have children, and how they parent

Jasmine Fledderjohann , Lancaster University ; Maureen Owino , York University, Canada , and Sophie Patterson , Lancaster University

Want long-term contraception? There are more effective options than the pill. But they can be hard to find

Deborah Bateson , University of Sydney and Kathleen McNamee , Monash University

An obscure 1800s law is shaping up to be the center of the next abortion battle – legal scholars explain what’s behind the Victorian-era Comstock Act

Sonia Suter , George Washington University and Naomi Cahn , University of Virginia

British Columbia’s coverage of contraceptives should inspire the rest of North America

Candace Johnson , University of Guelph

50 years after Roe, many ethics questions shape the abortion debate: 4 essential reads

Molly Jackson , The Conversation

Loretta Lynn was more than a great songwriter – she was a spokeswoman for white rural working-class  women

Stephanie Vander Wel , University at Buffalo

Related Topics

• Abortion ban
• Abortion law
• Abortion rights
• Reproductive health
• US Supreme Court
• Women's health
• Women's rights

Top contributors

Professor of Bioethics and Humanities, School of Medicine, University of Washington

Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Aston University

Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Ph.D candidate, INSPIRE Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow, Sciences Po

Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, University of Florida

Professor of Law, George Washington University

Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder

Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Liverpool

Professor of Law, University of Virginia

Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph

Professor of Jewish Studies, Interim Academic Dean and Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Chicago Theological Seminary

Professor, Universidad de Costa Rica

Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in the Politics of Reproduction, University of Waterloo

Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, James Cook University

Senior Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Key facts about the abortion debate in America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade – the decision that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years – has shifted the legal battle over abortion to the states, with some prohibiting the procedure and others moving to safeguard it.

As the nation’s post-Roe chapter begins, here are key facts about Americans’ views on abortion, based on two Pew Research Center polls: one conducted from June 25-July 4 , just after this year’s high court ruling, and one conducted in March , before an earlier leaked draft of the opinion became public.

This analysis primarily draws from two Pew Research Center surveys, one surveying 10,441 U.S. adults conducted March 7-13, 2022, and another surveying 6,174 U.S. adults conducted June 27-July 4, 2022. Here are the questions used for the March survey , along with responses, and the questions used for the survey from June and July , along with responses.

Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories.  Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

A majority of the U.S. public disapproves of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe. About six-in-ten adults (57%) disapprove of the court’s decision that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that abortion laws can be set by states, including 43% who strongly disapprove, according to the summer survey. About four-in-ten (41%) approve, including 25% who strongly approve.

About eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (82%) disapprove of the court’s decision, including nearly two-thirds (66%) who strongly disapprove. Most Republicans and GOP leaners (70%) approve , including 48% who strongly approve.

Most women (62%) disapprove of the decision to end the federal right to an abortion. More than twice as many women strongly disapprove of the court’s decision (47%) as strongly approve of it (21%). Opinion among men is more divided: 52% disapprove (37% strongly), while 47% approve (28% strongly).

About six-in-ten Americans (62%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to the summer survey – little changed since the March survey conducted just before the ruling. That includes 29% of Americans who say it should be legal in all cases and 33% who say it should be legal in most cases. About a third of U.S. adults (36%) say abortion should be illegal in all (8%) or most (28%) cases.

Generally, Americans’ views of whether abortion should be legal remained relatively unchanged in the past few years , though support fluctuated somewhat in previous decades.

Relatively few Americans take an absolutist view on the legality of abortion – either supporting or opposing it at all times, regardless of circumstances. The March survey found that support or opposition to abortion varies substantially depending on such circumstances as when an abortion takes place during a pregnancy, whether the pregnancy is life-threatening or whether a baby would have severe health problems.

While Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed, the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling. The wider gap has been largely driven by Democrats: Today, 84% of Democrats say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up from 72% in 2016 and 63% in 2007. Republicans’ views have shown far less change over time: Currently, 38% of Republicans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, nearly identical to the 39% who said this in 2007.

However, the partisan divisions over whether abortion should generally be legal tell only part of the story. According to the March survey, sizable shares of Democrats favor restrictions on abortion under certain circumstances, while majorities of Republicans favor abortion being legal in some situations , such as in cases of rape or when the pregnancy is life-threatening.

There are wide religious divides in views of whether abortion should be legal , the summer survey found. An overwhelming share of religiously unaffiliated adults (83%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do six-in-ten Catholics. Protestants are divided in their views: 48% say it should be legal in all or most cases, while 50% say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Majorities of Black Protestants (71%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (61%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while about three-quarters of White evangelicals (73%) say it should be illegal in all (20%) or most cases (53%).

In the March survey, 72% of White evangelicals said that the statement “human life begins at conception, so a fetus is a person with rights” reflected their views extremely or very well . That’s much greater than the share of White non-evangelical Protestants (32%), Black Protestants (38%) and Catholics (44%) who said the same. Overall, 38% of Americans said that statement matched their views extremely or very well.

Catholics, meanwhile, are divided along religious and political lines in their attitudes about abortion, according to the same survey. Catholics who attend Mass regularly are among the country’s strongest opponents of abortion being legal, and they are also more likely than those who attend less frequently to believe that life begins at conception and that a fetus has rights. Catholic Republicans, meanwhile, are far more conservative on a range of abortion questions than are Catholic Democrats.

Women (66%) are more likely than men (57%) to say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, according to the survey conducted after the court’s ruling.

More than half of U.S. adults – including 60% of women and 51% of men – said in March that women should have a greater say than men in setting abortion policy . Just 3% of U.S. adults said men should have more influence over abortion policy than women, with the remainder (39%) saying women and men should have equal say.

The March survey also found that by some measures, women report being closer to the abortion issue than men . For example, women were more likely than men to say they had given “a lot” of thought to issues around abortion prior to taking the survey (40% vs. 30%). They were also considerably more likely than men to say they personally knew someone (such as a close friend, family member or themselves) who had had an abortion (66% vs. 51%) – a gender gap that was evident across age groups, political parties and religious groups.

Relatively few Americans view the morality of abortion in stark terms , the March survey found. Overall, just 7% of all U.S. adults say having an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases, and 13% say it is morally wrong in all cases. A third say that having an abortion is morally wrong in most cases, while about a quarter (24%) say it is morally acceptable in most cases. An additional 21% do not consider having an abortion a moral issue.

Among Republicans, most (68%) say that having an abortion is morally wrong either in most (48%) or all cases (20%). Only about three-in-ten Democrats (29%) hold a similar view. Instead, about four-in-ten Democrats say having an abortion is morally  acceptable  in most (32%) or all (11%) cases, while an additional 28% say it is not a moral issue. 

White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly say having an abortion is morally wrong in most (51%) or all cases (30%). A slim majority of Catholics (53%) also view having an abortion as morally wrong, but many also say it is morally acceptable in most (24%) or all cases (4%), or that it is not a moral issue (17%). Among religiously unaffiliated Americans, about three-quarters see having an abortion as morally acceptable (45%) or not a moral issue (32%).

• Religion & Abortion

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many countries, especially in europe, nearly a year after roe’s demise, americans’ views of abortion access increasingly vary by where they live, by more than two-to-one, americans say medication abortion should be legal in their state, most latinos say democrats care about them and work hard for their vote, far fewer say so of gop, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Statement: Reproductive rights are women’s rights and human rights

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to E-mail

Reproductive rights are integral to women’s rights, a fact that is upheld by international agreements and reflected in law in different parts of the world.

To be able to exercise their human rights and make essential decisions, women need to be able to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to information, education, and services.

When safe and legal access to abortion is restricted, women are forced to resort to less-safe methods, too often with damaging or disastrous results—especially for women who are affected by poverty or marginalization, including minority women.

The ability of women to control what happens to their own bodies is also associated with the roles women are able to play in society, whether as a member of the family, the workforce, or government.

UN Women remains steadfast in our determination to ensure that the rights of women and girls are fully observed and enjoyed worldwide, and we look forward to continued evidence-based engagement with our partners everywhere in support of rapid progress towards universal enjoyment of universal rights.

• Sexual and reproductive health and rights
• Women’s rights
• Human rights

Related content

Six months into the war on Gaza, over 10,000 women have been killed, among them an estimated 6,000 mothers, leaving 19,000 children orphaned

Speech: Gender equality – just, prudent, and essential for everything we all aspire to

Speech: We are not deterred – Let us push forward together for gender equality

The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14th Amendment

Introduction

For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken away a right that it had recognized as fundamental to personal liberty: the right to abortion. The Supreme Court, in its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , overruled Roe v. Wade and nearly 50 years of constitutional precedent and held that there is no constitutional right to abortion.

Contrary to the majority’s opinion — and as the dissent powerfully explains — the right to reproductive autonomy is deeply grounded in the U.S. Constitution and is about much more than Roe and the right to abortion. In recognizing the constitutional importance of decisions about childbearing, the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe was correct — and like watershed decisions before and after it, Roe grounded reproductive rights in federal constitutional rights of privacy and liberty .

The Supreme Court’s decimation of precedent requires a rebuilding of jurisprudence to align with the promise of the 14th Amendment. While the Amendment’s guarantee against state deprivation of liberty — including a right to privacy and to control one’s body — must remain a core pillar of reproductive autonomy, it should not be the only pillar. Multiple legal rights establish that government restrictions on reproductive autonomy constitute sex, race, and economic discrimination, and that such restrictions can deny people their lives, as well as their ability to live their lives with dignity. 

Despite the Supreme Court’s radical and harmful ruling in Dobbs, courts must remain rights-protecting institutions in our democracy—and we must insist that they fulfill their role in ensuring equal justice for all.

A new report from the Center for Reproductive Rights, “The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14 th Amendment,” delves into constitutional rights and guarantees in U.S. law that undergird the right to reproductive autonomy—and how those principles, along with related jurisprudence, can strengthen reproductive rights going forward.  

It draws on instructive international and comparative law, scholarship by leading experts in constitutional and human rights law, the transformative work of reproductive justice advocates, and the Center’s expertise as the only global legal organization dedicated to protecting and advancing reproductive rights as human rights.

> Read the full report here.

The report illuminates:

How reproductive oppression is used as a tool to control women, people of color, and people living on low incomes and to perpetuate stereotypes and women’s second-class status.

Why reproductive autonomy matters to health, life, and economic and family wellbeing.

Jurisprudence protecting reproductive autonomy that can inform future rulings.

The ways in which international human rights law protects reproductive autonomy.

Constitutional rights to liberty, equal protection, and life and how these principles can strengthen protections for reproductive autonomy going forward.

Highlights of the report follow. To explore these topics and others in-depth, read the full report:

• “The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14 th Amendment”

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” United States Constitution, 14 th Amendment, Section 1

I. Reproductive Autonomy and Why it Matters

Reproductive autonomy—the power to make and act on decisions about reproduction—is central to how people shape their lives. To enable people to fulfill their reproductive autonomy rights, governments must respect and protect those rights. In the U.S., however, the history of reproductive oppression and modern-day realities confirm the devastating and lasting harms when the government fails to protect the right to reproductive autonomy.

The Historical Context of Reproductive Control

For centuries, the nation’s laws enforced the second-class status of women. Laws and policies perpetuated stereotypes about women’s proper role in society and enforced their second-class status in myriad ways, from limiting women’s ability to own property, vote, pursue an education, work, and participate fully in civic life. 

At the same time, laws authorized coercive and brutal means to control the childbearing of women viewed by lawmakers as “unfit”—in particular, Black, Native American, immigrant, and disabled women. Among these policies were the forced childbirth of Black women who were enslaved, forced removal of children from Native American households, racially restrictive immigration policies, forced sterilization, and the denial of public benefits to unmarried women.

Read more about the historical context of reproductive control on page 4 of the report .

Reproductive Autonomy Is Critical to Health, Life, and Economic and Family Wellbeing

Bringing a child into the world, raising and nurturing children, and building families and communities are among the most joyful and meaningful life experiences. At the same time, pregnancy and childbirth carry significant health risks, including death. Thus, pregnancy and childbirth should be safe, healthy, and supported experiences. But today in the U.S., maternal mortality is rising, with disproportionate impacts on Black, Indigenous, and other people of color.

For people who decide to end a pregnancy, abortion is extremely safe, but criminalizing it—as states are doing in the aftermath of Dobbs —will exacerbate this maternal mortality crisis. It will also endanger the economic and social wellbeing of women and their families.

The legalization of abortion after Roe v. Wade had measurable and significant positive impacts on women’s socioeconomic standing and on gender equality overall, enabling generations of women to plan and control if and when to start a family, participate more fully in society, and attain higher levels of education, employment, and economic security. 

Read more about the importance of reproductive autonomy on page 7 of the report.

II. Constitutional and Human Rights Bases of the Right to Reproductive Autonomy

Because of the deep and lasting impacts of pregnancy and childbirth on an individual’s life, the right to reproductive autonomy is grounded in the life, liberty, and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The right is also grounded in international human rights, which promote and protect the dignity and equality of all people.

Courts must be clear that people do not lose their legal rights when they become pregnant or may become pregnant– but have an equal claim to all recognized rights—and must be able to make decisions related to pregnancy and childbearing without government coercion.

The Right to Liberty: Personal Decision Making and Bodily Autonomy

The Supreme Court was correct decades ago when it concluded that the 14th Amendment’s Liberty Clause protects individual decisions about whether and when to have a child. Indeed, for more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution’s textual protection for liberty to include the right to make personal decisions related to family, marriage, and childrearing, as well as the right to control one’s body. Many state courts, interpreting their similar state constitutions, have done the same. 

International human rights treaty bodies have likewise made clear that governments must protect, respect, and fulfill the right to make personal decisions, including regarding reproductive capacity.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs to excise the right to abortion as a component of personal liberty was wrong and undermines decades of jurisprudence about the meaning of liberty, including cases recognizing rights to contraception, sexual intimacy between consenting adults, and to marry the person of one’s choice.

Read more about the 14th Amendment’s right to liberty on page 16 of the report .  

The Right to Equal Protection and Freedom from Discrimination

Government control of reproductive capacity has long persisted as a tool to subordinate women, people of color, people living on lower incomes and other disfavored groups. The Supreme Court has acknowledged aspects of this history, and a body of judicial opinions and scholarship confirms that a correct understanding of the right to equal protection prohibits the government from regulating people who are pregnant or who have the capacity to become pregnant in these discriminatory ways. International human rights law reinforces robust protections for the right to equality and non-discrimination.

• Sex Stereotyping and Gender Discrimination— Under current federal constitutional standards, laws that discriminate on the basis of sex are subject to heightened scrutiny. Such laws are unconstitutional if they are based on stereotypes about men, women, and traditional gender roles, or if they otherwise perpetuate the second-class status of women. Because government control of decisions related to reproduction and pregnancy perpetuates the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women, these laws are a form of sex discrimination subject to heightened scrutiny.
• Race Discrimination— The constitutional guarantee of equal protection also requires redressing reproductive oppression targeting Black women and other people of color and the ongoing impact of systemic racism on reproductive health and rights. Building on and moving beyond existing case law under the Equal Protection Clause, courts can and should address both the discriminatory intent and impact of laws and policies denying Black women and other people of color the equal right to reproductive autonomy.
• Economic Inequality— Seminal Supreme Court decisions recognize that courts can hold governments accountable for remedying the laws, systems, and institutions that discriminate against people living on lower incomes or in poverty, especially when liberty and family relationships are at stake. Under equal protection analysis, courts should apply heightened scrutiny to all policies that deprive people struggling to make ends meet of decisional autonomy, dignity, and non-discriminatory health care during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum.
• Intersecting Forms of Discrimination and Interdependent Rights— Courts also should apply heightened scrutiny to intersectional claims under the 14th Amendment.  First, courts can apply legal frameworks that recognize and address the  multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination marginalized groups experience. Second, when the state discriminates against traditionally subordinated groups seeking to make deeply personal and intimate decisions, courts can build on Supreme Court precedent recognizing that the protections of the Liberty and Equal Protection Clauses are mutually reinforcing. In these ways, an intersectional analysis drawing on reproductive justice and human rights frameworks can provide a stronger legal framework for securing the equal right to reproductive autonomy for all.

Read more about the 14 th Amendment’s right to equal protection and freedom from discrimination on page 20 of the report.

The Right to Life of the Pregnant Person

International human rights law recognizes that the right to life provides critical protections for reproductive autonomy. While underdeveloped in U.S. jurisprudence, a growing body of scholarship looks at the ways government interference with personal decisions about pregnancy and medical care threatens a person’s constitutional right to life.

Thus, challenges to state policies or official actions that threaten the health, safety, and lives of individuals who are pregnant, giving birth, and postpartum as violations of the right to life are ripe for development. An important guide in doing so is the strong recognition under human rights law of the right to life as a critical protection for reproductive autonomy. 

Read more about the 14 th Amendment’s right to life on page 41 of the Report.

The U.S. Constitution requires the government to respect—and courts to protect—the human right to reproductive autonomy. The 14th Amendment ensures this through its multiple and interdependent guarantees of life, liberty, and equal protection—as does international human rights law. Each of these foundational sources supports a broad right to reproductive autonomy that advocates, scholars, and jurists must not only defend against further retrogression, but also strengthen for future generations.

Read the complete report here:

• “ The Constitutional Right to Reproductive Autonomy: Realizing the Promise of the 14 th Amendment ”

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Away the Constitutional Right to Abortion

On June 24, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court abandoned its duty to protect fundamental rights and overturned  Roe v. Wade , ruling there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court has taken away a fundamental right.  Read more here.

State Constitutions and Abortion Rights: Building Protections for Reproductive Autonomy

Learn how state supreme court cases have resulted in broader protections for abortion rights and access and influenced outcomes in other cases and courts—and how this jurisprudence can expand and shape further efforts to secure reproductive rights. Read more here.

Legal Analysis: What Dobbs Got Wrong

This briefing paper by the Center for Reproductive Rights analyzes the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in Dobbs . Read more here.

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Privacy Overview

Women in the States

• Reproductive Rights

In this Section

Access to abortion, the affordable care act and contraceptive coverage, medicaid expansion and state medicaid family planning eligibility expansions, other family planning policies and resources, fertility, natality, and infant health, view additional data by state, download the data.

• Read the Full Section
• Download the PDF

Reproductive rights—having the ability to decide whether and when to have children—are important to women’s socioeconomic well-being and overall health. Research suggests that being able to make decisions about one’s own reproductive life and the timing of one’s entry into parenthood is associated with greater relationship stability and satisfaction ( National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy 2008 ), more work experience among women ( Buckles 2008 ), and increased wages and average career earnings ( Miller 2011 ). In recent years, policies affecting women’s reproductive rights in the United States have substantially changed at both the federal and state levels. Between the publication of the 2004 Status of Women in the States report and this report, states overall made nominal progress on two indicators and declined or stayed the same on five others.

In the United States, the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established the legal right to abortion. State legislative and executive bodies nonetheless continue to battle over legislation related to access to abortion, including parental consent and notification and mandatory waiting periods ( Guttmacher Institute 2015b ). In addition, public funding for abortion remains a contested issue in many states: federal law has banned the use of federal funds for most abortions since 1977, and currently does not allow the use of federal funds for abortion unless the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or the woman’s life is in danger ( Boonstra 2013 ). The Affordable Care Act of 2010 reinforces these restrictions, but state Medicaid programs have the option to cover abortion in other circumstances using only state and no federal funds ( Salganicoff et al. 2014 ).

State legislative efforts to limit access to abortion have become commonplace. In 2013 and 2014, a broad range of legislation was introduced and passed, including bills requiring women to have an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, stringent regulatory measures targeting abortion providers, bans or restrictions preventing women from obtaining health insurance coverage for abortion, and bans on abortion at later stages of pregnancy ( National Women’s Law Center 2014a and 2014b ).

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has expanded women’s access to contraception in several ways, including by requiring health care insurers to cover contraceptive counseling and services and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods without any out-of-pocket costs to patients ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2014 ). This change is particularly significant for lower-income women who often struggle with the financial burden associated with purchasing contraception on a regular basis ( Center for Reproductive Rights 2012) . According to the Guttmacher Institute, the average cost of a year’s supply of birth control pills is the equivalent of 51 hours of work for a woman making the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour ( Sonfield 2014 ). One national study estimates that for uninsured women, the average cost of these pills over a year ($370) is 68 percent of their annual out-of-pocket expenditures for health care services ( Liang, Grossman, and Phillips 2011 ).

In addition to requiring most health insurers to cover contraceptive counseling and services and all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, the Affordable Care Act has increased women’s access to contraception by expanding the number of people who have health insurance coverage. The ACA has dramatically reduced rates of uninsurance among women aged 18 to 24 by allowing adult children to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until the age of 26; between 2008 and 2014, the percentage of women aged 18 to 24 without health insurance decreased from 24.9 to 15.9 percent. During this time period, uninsurance rates for women of all ages dropped about 18 percent, from 13.0 percent of women lacking insurance in 2008 to 10.6 percent in the first nine months of 2014 ( Martinez and Cohen 2009 and 2015 ). Complete data reflecting changes in health insurance for women following the ACA are not yet available.

Infertility treatments can increase the reproductive choices of women and men, but they are often prohibitively expensive, especially when they are not covered by insurance. As of June 2014, the legislatures of 12 states—Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and West Virginia—had passed measures requiring insurance companies to cover infertility treatments.

The fertility rate for women in the United States has declined in recent years, due in part to women’s tendency to marry and give birth later in life. In 2013, the median age for women at the time of their first marriage was 26.6 years, up from 20.3 years in 1960 ( U.S. Census Bureau 2013 ; Cohn et al. 2011 ). In 2013, the mean age for women at the time of their first birth was 26.0 years, compared with 21.4 years in 1970 ( Martin et al. 2015a ; Mathews and Brady 2009 ).

See the state-level data is available on low birth weight babies and infant mortality rates by race and ethnicity.

Download the state-level data is available on low birth weight babies and infant mortality rates by race and ethnicity.

Reproductive Rights

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences: Reproductive Rights Reference article published in 2008 that defines reproductive rights, provides a brief history of related political movements, and links to other relevant articles in the Journal of International Women's Studies , the  Encyclopedia of Race and Racism,  and more.   

Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States E-book published in 2022 with reference articles regarding a variety of reproductive rights topics.   

American Governance: Abortion Rights   Legal and political perspectives about abortion published in 2016 by the  American Governance Encyclopedia .

Opposing Viewpoints: Abortion   Overview of abortion debate perspectives published in 2022 by  Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints .  

Roe vs. Wade Civil Rights in America article published in 1999 that contains an overview and excerpts of the 1973 Supreme Court decision regarding abortion law in the United States.  

Reproductive Rights in History 1820 to 1989 timeline with historical artifact images by Duke University.  

Reproductive Rights: Law & History  Topical history of reproductive rights law below by FindLaw.com, a Thomson Reuters website established in 1996.

PBS Newshour: Exploring the Complicated History of Abortion in the United States 2022 news segment video by the Public Broadcasting Service including history and legal expert interviews.   

Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today Timeline of abortion law and public opinion by Planned Parenthood, a reproductive healthcare provider established in 1916.

Abortion - Ancient and Modern  (51 minutes)

Fighting for Fertility  (53 minutes)

The Abortion Divide  (53 minutes)

Unplanned Pregnancies: The Choices  (26 minutes)

American Journal of Bioethics

Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)  (available without GTC login)

Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University)

Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, & Culture

Scientific American: Health  (available without GTC login)

AAFP Conditions 2022 (medical conditions)

Gale Issues in Context

Gale Online Health and Wellness

Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context

HeinOnline (law)

Points of View Reference Center

South Carolina Legislature  (available without GTC login) 

Research Guides

LGBTQ+ Resources

News: Fact or Fiction?

Public Research Resources 

Research 

Women’s Studies

Subjects & Keywords

Birth control

Family planning

Infertility

Miscarriage 

Obstetrics and gynecology  

Pregnancy 

Pro-choice movement

Pro-life movement

Reproductive justice

Reproductive medicine and technology

Reproductive rights

Sexual and reproductive health

Sterilization (birth control)

Unplanned pregnancy

• Next: Legal >>
• Last Updated: Jul 25, 2023 3:23 PM
• URL: https://libguides.gvltec.edu/reproductiverights

• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?
• Research and Practice
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism and Equity (IDARE)
• Alumni Employment
• Courses by Areas of Interest
• MSPH Field Placements
• HPRIL - BLOG
• HPRIL - COVID-19
• Introduction
• Project Development
• Implementation
• Dissemination
• Tools and Templates
• HPRIL - Cabarrus Health Alliance
• HPRIL - Miami Dade County
• HPRIL - Pima County
• HPRIL - Public Health Solutions, NY
• HPRIL - Yavapai County WIC, AZ
• Advisory Board
• Publications
• COVID-19 Policies and Childhood Obesity Study
• Childcare Wellness Practices & Policies Project
• Evaluation of COVID-19 School Meals Response
• Maryland Wellness Policies and Practices Project (MWPPP)
• Wellness Champions for Change
• Healthiest Maryland Schools
• Project SELECT
• Tools and Resources
• For Families
• Volunteer and Employment
• Ali Crandall, PhD '14
• Alyssa Crawford, MSPH ‘11
• Alyssa Sharkey, PhD '08
• Emily Gregory, MD, MHS '15
• Funmilola OlaOlorun, PhD ’13, MBBS, MPH
• Ginny Bowen, PhD ‘13, MHS ‘08
• Jenna Riis, PhD '15
• Kay Gonsalves, MSPH ‘11
• Lindsay Litwin, MSPH '13
• Michael Yonas, DrPH '03
• 2023 PFRH Graduates
• Alumni Highlights
• Congratulations
• Education Happenings
• Research & Practice Highlights
• 2022 PFRH Graduates
• Faculty Highlight - Erin Hager
• IDARE & Education
• Make a Gift
• Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Gender Based Violence

Gender disparities, maternal health.

• Men’s Sexual and Reproductive Health
• Pregnancy prevention: Family Planning/Unintended pregnancy and Abortion

Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health

Clinical correlates of mycoplasma genitalium in young women.

Maria Trent The primary aims of this study are to determine the rate and 12-month longitudinal clinical correlates of MG and TV infection among a sample of young pregnant women 13-29 years of age seeking reproductive health care in an urban hospital setting. The outcomes of this work will be critical for determining need for integration of MG testing in routine laboratory testing once available.

Evaluation of Sexual Health Curriculum for Health Students in Tanzania

Maria Trent As documented in the US Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior, training of health providers in sexual health care is critical to addressing a broad array of the nation's sexual and reproductive health concerns. Yet rigorous trials evaluating the effects of sexual health curricula on provider behavior are rare. In sub-Saharan Africa, an environment which has the highest rates of HIV, STI, teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, unsafe abortion, child marriage of girls and sexual assault of boys in the world, and where female genital cutting, wife-beating, marital rape, criminalization of homosexuality, stigmatization of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) persons, myths about masturbation leading to dysfunction, and rates of sexual dysfunction in both men and women are common, we could find no formalized training of health providers in sexual health care. Sexual health education, even of health providers, is a sensitive issue in Africa. Consequently, a rigorous study of its effects is needed, if such education is to be widely adopted. Recently, at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS) in Dar es Salaam, we adapted a PAHO/WHO sexual health curriculum training for healthcare providers for implementation in Tanzania. Participants were 87 nursing, midwifery, and allied health science students. Pre-post evaluations show the curriculum to be highly acceptable, needed, and desired by students, feasible in implementation, and effective in improving student knowledge, attitudes, and skills in providing sexual health care to patients. The logical next step in this line of research is to conduct the first rigorous trial of a comprehensive sexual health training curriculum for health professionals in Tanzania. There are three specific aims. Aim 1 is to conduct a social ecological needs assessment of sexual health care delivery in Tanzania. To determine whether midwifery, nursing, medical, and allied health science students would benefit from one curriculum or separate curricula tailored by discipline, we will conduct focus groups (3 from each discipline). We will also conduct individual interviews with key informants to address structural and cultural issues. In Aim 2, we will further adapt our curriculum, ensure it is culturally tailored to the Tanzanian/sub-Saharan context, and pilot test it. Aim 3 is to evaluate the effectiveness of an African-based, culturally-appropriate, sexual health curriculum. We will conduct a randomized, controlled, single blinded trial of the curriculum against a waitlist control assessing effects on sexual health knowledge, attitudes, and counseling skills (n=206 students per arm; 412 in total). Hypotheses will test if the curriculum is effective, and whether it is more effective for one discipline than another. If effective, MUHAS has committed to implement the curriculum for all their health students. Given MUHAS is preeminent in health student education across Africa, the curriculum assessed in this study has high potential to be widely adopted as a new standard of training for health professionals across Africa.

Faith-based Adolescents Involved in Total Health

Terrinieka Williams Powell Focused on those areas of Baltimore where the adolescent pregnancy rates are the highest, this study aims to understand what is currently being done in the churches of those communities to address pregnancy prevention and to identify the potentials and barriers for effective interventions.

The Global Early Adolescent Study

Robert Blum, Caroline Moreau, Kristin Mmari, Saifuddin Ahmed, Lori Heise, Leah Keonig, Mengmeng Li, Mark Emerson The Global Early Adolescent Study (GEAS) seeks to understand how norms, attitudes and expectations about gender influence health outcomes and behaviors across the adolescent period. Building upon formative, mixed-methods research conducted in sixteen countries between 2014 and 2016, the GEAS has collected baseline data from over 13,000 adolescents on five continents since 2017. Additional survey topics include sexual and reproductive health, mental health, body comfort, school retention and empowerment. In four countries, the GEAS is used to evaluate the longitudinal impact of gender-transformative interventions carried out by Rutgers, Netherlands; Save the Children and the Institute of Women and Ethnic Studies. Participating GEAS sites include New Orleans, USA; Cuenca, Ecuador; Santiago, Chile; São Paolo, Brazil; Belgium; Indonesia; Shanghai, China; Kinshasa, DRC; Cape Town, South Africa; and Blantyre, Malawi. Results from the longitudinal GEAS will help to answer important questions about the formation and manifestations of gender inequality, its relationship to health and well-being and the interventions that are effective in promoting gender equality.

Current activities include efforts to improve awareness of and response to ethical issues in research and programming with adolescents living in vulnerable contexts the development of a special supplement using baseline GEAS focused on gender equality. At present, students are involved in manuscript development with partners in China, Ecuador, Bolivia and Malawi. For more information about the GEAS, including our global network of collaborators, recent reports and publications and open-access survey and training instruments, please visit the GEAS website.

Harriet Lane Clinic’s Title X Program

Arik V. Marcell Funded by the Office of Population Affairs, to provide reproductive health services to adolescents & young adults who are uninsured, underinsured or seeking confidential services and conduct quality improvement strategies to ensure providers are delivering quality family planning and sexual and reproductive health care services.

Technology Enchanced Community Health Nursing to Reduce Recurrent STIs after PID

Maria Trent This study examines the efficacy of a technology-enhanced community health nursing intervention on adherence to PID treatment recommendations and subsequent short-term sexually transmitted infection acquisition using a randomized controlled trial.

Community-partnered technology for partner violence prevention and response: MyPlanKenya

Michele Decker, Nancy Glass (School of Nursing) This initiative adapts and refines a safety planning “app” intervention for women in urban Kenya, followed by evaluation via randomized controlled trial. The app enables priority-setting for safety-related decisions and provides support and referrals to local resources. It harnesses community health volunteers (CHVs) as key lay professionals poised to play a critical role in partner violence prevention and response. With support from ideas42.

Continuum of Shelter and Housing Models for Victims of Intimate Partner Violence

Michele Decker, Charvonne Holliday With support from the National Institute of Justice, this initiative entails formative evaluation and evaluability assessment for leading models of housing stabilization for partner violence survivors, specifically rapid rehousing and transitional housing, in partnership with House of Ruth Maryland. Following a formative phase, we monitor health, safety, and well-being indicators among IPV survivors receiving housing support over a 6-month follow-up period, and evaluate readiness to support IPV survivors among housing providers.

Developing and Piloting A Gender-Based Violence Intervention Module to Reduce HIV Risk among Female Sex Workers (FSWs)

Michele Decker, Susan Sherman (Epi), Nancy Glass (School of Nursing) With support from the Johns Hopkins Center for AIDS Research (P30AI094189, PI Chaisson), this initiative uses a community-based participatory approach to develop and pilot test a brief violence intervention module to encourage violence-related harm reduction, provide social support related to violence victimization, and reduce related HIV risk behavior among women who trade sex or are sexually exploited.

Collaborative for Gender Equity and Empowerment in Education, Health and Labor Systems

Michele Decker, Lori Heise, Nancy Glass, Rosemary Morgan, Colleen Stuart, Toni Ungaretti, Vivian Lee This collaborative blends gender analysis with case studies and development and field testing of new indicators for gendered aspects of labor, education and health systems, in collaboration with academic and community partners.

Duration of Hormonal Contraceptive Use: Immune Responses & Vaginal Microbiota

PI: Dr. Khalil Ghanem – Co-investigator: Anne Burke This NIH-funded study investigates the impact of hormonal contraceptives on the vaginal microbiome. Use of postpartum IUDs and implants. This study evaluates outcomes in women who receive long-acting contraception in the immediate postpartum period.

Gender barriers to non-communicable disease prevention, treatment and management

Michele Decker, Rosemary Morgan, Nancy Glass This collaboration with World Health Organization applies gender analysis frameworks to non-communicable diseases via a scoping review of gender barriers to care, primarily in low and middle income countries.

Bob Blum, Caroline Moreau, Kristin Mmari, Saifuddin Ahmed, Lori Heise, Leah Keonig, Mengmeng Li, Mark Emerson The purpose of The Global Early Adolescent Study is to understand how gender norms influence sexual attitudes and relationship formation in early adolescence as well as subsequent sexual activity and contraceptive practices in older adolescence. Specifically, the study explores: 1) gender socialization in early adolescents; 2) how gender norms inform sexual and reproductive health (SRH) across adolescent years 3) how gender transformative interventions can improve SRH trajectories. The study takes place in 9 urban poor sites across 4 continents (South Africa, Malawi, DRC, Belgium, China, Indonesia, Chili, Brazil and the United States) and follows between 600 and 3000 young adolescents 10-14 years in each site over a 3 to 5 year period. This research provides empirical evidence testing gender pathways to SRH while guiding programs to overcome gender discrimination and promote women’s and girls’ wellbeing. To learn more please visit the GEAS page .

Antihypertensive Medication in Pregnancy: An Update from the 2011 WHO Recommendations for Prevention and Treatment of Preeclampsia and Eclampsia

Donna Strobino, Saifuddin Ahmed, Erika Werner (Brown Univ, school of Medicine), Mahua Mandal, Laina Gagliardi, and Roxanne Beltran The aim of this project is to update the science behind WHO recommended anti-hypertensive medications in pregnancy to prevent preeclampsia and manage hypertension and to estimates the prevalence of chronic hypertension, preeclampsia and all hypertensive disorders in pregnancy using data from population- based studies worldwide and facility based studies in resource poor settings. The study also using extant data to estimate unmet need and potential demand for antihypertensive medications in pregnancy in low resource settings.

Contraceptive Efficacy of a Novel Vaginal Ring

Anne Burke This is an upcoming NICHD-funded, prospective study evaluating use of a vaginal contraceptive ring in healthy women. Pharmacokinetics of oral contraceptives before and after bariatric surgery. This study compares pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of oral contraceptive use for women undergoing gastric bypass surgery.

Men's Sexual and Reproductive Health

Project connect baltimore.

Arik V. Marcell This is a CDC-funded program to evaluate school and community-based methods to engage males in HIV/STD testing and sexual and reproductive health care in Baltimore City by training youth-serving professionals on a web-based clinical services provider guide for male-specific clinical services (Y2CONNECT.org). If successful, this project will advance the field of male health promotion through its use of innovative approaches and technology that are easily transferable to a variety of settings and implemented at low cost

Technology Enchanced Community Health Nursing Study

Maria Trent The study involves 350 young women 13-21years old diagnosed with PID in Baltimore and randomize them to receive CHN clinical support using a single post-PID face-to-face clinical evaluation and SMS communication support. We hypothesize that repackaging the recommended CDC-follow-up visit using a technology-enhanced community health nursing intervention (TECH-N) with integration of an evidence-based STI prevention curriculum will reduce rates of short-term repeat infection by improving adherence to PID treatment and reducing unprotected intercourse and be more cost-effective compared with outpatient standard of care (and hospitalization). To learn more, please visit the Study Record Detail page .

Pregnancy Prevention: Family Planning/Unintended Pregnancy and Abortion

Advance family planning.

Duff Gillespie, Beth Fredrick Advance Family Planning (AFP) is an advocacy initiative established in 2009 at the William H. Gates Sr. Institute for Population and Reproductive Health. AFP aims to increase the financial investment and political commitment needed to ensure access to high-quality, voluntary family planning through collaborative, evidence-based advocacy aimed at working effectively with decision-makers. AFP is supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Evidence of COVID-19’s Potential Impact on Inequities in Abortion Access

Suzanne Bell, Anne Burke,  Carolyn Sufrin

Results from a small study completed by Bloomberg School faculty and students found that COVID-19 potentially increased existing inequities related to abortion. The study looked at abortion service availability and care seeking experiences in the Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia region during the pandemic and found that financially disadvantaged groups were disproportionately negatively impacted.  More information is found in the facsheet,  

FP quality metrics in Maryland

Caroline Moreau, Anne Burke This project aims to test a framework for monitoring quality of care for family planning among all women of reproductive age in Maryland, using computerized data found in health insurance claims and electronic health record (EHR) systems

Measuring the incidence and safety of Abortion

Caroline Moreau, Suzanne Bell The PMA Abortion project aims to use the PMA platform to conduct research on Abortion in 3 geographies (Cote D’Ivoire, Nigeria, Rajasthan) to assess abortion prevalence and safety using both direct and indirect measures and to explore women’s access to care for abortion procedures.

PMA Agile: Monitoring family planning service delivery and use at the subnational level

Amy Tsui, Scott Radloff, Phil Anglewicz This project is being implemented in 13 urban sites in collaboration with research partners in Burkina Faso, DR Congo, India, Kenya, Niger and Nigeria. PMA Agile conducts quarterly surveys of health facilities and semi-annual surveys of clients to monitor change in service preparedness and quality as well as client satisfaction and their continued use of contraception.

Performance Monitoring in Action

Scott Radloff Performance Monitoring for Action or PMA for short (formerly PMA2020) is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded project, implemented in partnership with Jhpiego and a network of university and research institutions, that supports rapid-turnaround surveys to monitor progress in reproductive health indicators. The project was launched in 2013.

PMA implements cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys to fill a data gap – collecting information to understand the drivers of contraceptive use dynamics – information that is not currently measured by other large-scale surveys. While having a core family planning focus, the PMA platform can be used for data collection in other health topics. To date the platform has been used to collect data for guiding programs in abortion, adolescent sexual and reproductive health, women and girls’ empowerment, maternal and child health, nutrition, water and sanitation, menstrual hygiene management, neglected tropical diseases (schistosomiasis), sample vital registration systems, and primary health care.

The project employs a network of female resident enumerators recruited from near the selected survey clusters who are trained to use smartphones to gather survey data. The PMA platform has been deployed in 11 countries so far with plans to expand. Countries include Ghana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Indonesia, India, Cote d’Ivoire, and Kenya.

For more information please visit pmadata.org .

The predictive utility of unmet need and intentions to use contraception in Uganda

Amy Tsui, Scott Radloff, Saifuddin Ahmed The study team is assessing the predictive utility of a leading indicator, unmet need for contraception, and that of a less prominent one, future intention to use, as influencing contraceptive adoption, using data from a four-year panel follow-up of a national sample of Ugandan women.

Quality improvement to integrate HIV testing in the Harriet Lane Clinic’s Title X Program

Arik V. Marcell Funded by the Office of Population Affairs, the goal of this program is to integrate rapid HIV testing as part of Title X services and increase the proportion of clients receiving HIV test results and evaluate increased use using rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles.

Seminar Topical Research Guides

• Advanced Estate Planning
• Advanced Torts
• Appellate Advocacy
• Civil Rights
• Corporate Governance
• Cults and Alternative Religions
• Domestic Violence
• Education and the Law
• Employment Discrimination
• First Amendment
• Global Approaches to Immigration and Citizenship
• Global Governance of Emerging Technologies
• Health Insurance Reform
• Institutional Misconduct
• Law and Psychology
• Law and Sexuality
• Law and Social Change
• Mass Torts Litigation
• Medical Malpractice & Medical Error
• The Moral Leader
• A More Perfect Union: Membership and Belonging
• National Security Law
• Privacy, Big Data and Emerging Technologies
• Products Liability
• Race and the Law

Getting Started

Interdisciplinary databases, web resources, westlaw and lexis.

• State and Local Finance

Ask a Law Librarian

The reference librarians at the Ross-Blakley Law Library are happy to help you find or navigate research resources. Librarians are available 9am-4pm Monday-Thursday and 9am-2pm on Friday.

Reference:  (480) 965-7161 Email us now!

Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (COL) Students

• Make an Appointment with a Law Librarian :  COL students can make individual appointments with law librarians for one-on-one assistance by submitting this online request form . Appointments are available in-person, by phone, or via Zoom.
• Group Research Training with a Law Librarian :  This is an opportunity for groups of three or more COL students to receive personalized research instruction on any legal research topic. The Law Library's expert reference librarians will meet with your group and provide training to meet your research needs. Group trainings can be held in-person or via Zoom.
• Chat with a Law Librarian :  COL students can connect with law librarians via LibChat during reference hours .

Choosing a Paper Topic Research Guide This research guide from the  Ross-Blakley  Law Library is designed for students who are writing a substantive legal research paper and are looking for guidance on how to begin. The guide details sources for help in selecting a paper topic and offers insight in how to check whether your paper will add new information to the field of law.

Conducting a Preemption Check Research Guide This research guide details the recommended steps for conducting a preemption check, as well as provides information on and links to a variety of resources for conducting a thorough check.

ASU has a number of online and print treatises on the legal issues of reproduction. You can search for them in the ASU catalog by using subject headings such as: Human reproductive technology-- moral and ethical aspects , Human reproductive technology—government policy , Medical laws and legislation , and Family policy . You can limit your results to e-books by clicking “Full Text Online” on the right. Print books available in other ASU libraries may be requested and delivered to you at the law library.

ASU subscribes to many interdisciplinary databases that contain content related to reproduction, reproductive technologies, and the law.  Below is a select list of databases, you can search for additional resources through the following database subject lists: Health Sciences and Women, Gender, and Sexuality . All of the databases listed below can be accessed on campus, ore remotely with ASURITE credentials.

Contemporary Women’s Issues Contains the full-text of domestic and international journal articles, newsletters, and research reports dealing with women’s issues.  Coverage is from 1992 to the present.

Google Scholar    Allows searching of multidisciplinary scholarly literature including articles, papers, books, abstracts, and technical reports from a wide variety of resources.

Medline (ProQuest) The premier bibliography in biomedicine and life sciences, compiled by The National Library of Medicine.

PudMed Central The U.S. National Library of Medicine's digital archive of life sciences journal literature. It provides a full-text collection of biomedical, medicine, health, biotechnology related online journals.

Science Direct ScienceDirect is an index to journal articles and book chapters from more than 2,500 peer-reviewed journals and more than 11,000 books on scientific, medical, and technical topics.

Women’s Studies International Indexes international journals and books dealing with political, social, and cultural women’s issues.   Coverage is from 1972 to the present.

Reproductive Rights Prof Blog Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network, this blog is edited by a law professor at CUNY School of Law.

Family Law Prof Blog Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network, this blog is edited by a law professor at Indiana University School of Law.

Womenstake Womenstake is the blog of the National Women's Law Center.  It provides news and information on women’s health issues including reproductive rights.

Westlaw Family Law Page  (Westlaw password required) This Westlaw page provides a convenient location for searching and browsing a variety of primary and secondary sources specific to family law including cases, statutes, regulations, forms, and proposed legislation and regulations.

Lexis Family Law Page   (Lexis password required) This Lexis Family Law Page provides access to a variety of materials specific to family law issues, organized by topic, including adoption, custody, paternity, and surrogacy.

• << Previous: Race and the Law
• Next: State and Local Finance >>
• Last Updated: Mar 28, 2024 1:19 PM
• URL: https://libguides.law.asu.edu/seminarguides

• Videos & Photos
• Take Action

Reproductive Rights and Abortion

Reproductive rights are essential for women to enjoy their human rights. These rights are centered on women’s ability to make the best choices for their lives, including around the number of children they have, if any, and the spacing between their children’s births. Reproductive rights include prenatal services, safe childbirth, and access to contraception. They also include access to legal and safe abortion. Abortion bans violate the rights to be free from violence, to privacy, to family, to health, and even the right to life. And bans are most devastating for people of color, young people, and marginalized communities, who already have trouble accessing health care and other needed services. Governments should trust women to know what is best for their bodies, their physical and mental health, and their lives.

April 15, 2024

April 14, 2024

March 28, 2024

Poland: Abortion Witch Hunt Targets Women, Doctors

Criminalization, Pursuit of Alleged Offenders Violates Rights

Access Denied

How Florida Judges Obstruct Young People’s Ability to Obtain Abortion Care

“Why Do They Want to Make Me Suffer Again?”

The Impact of Abortion Prosecutions in Ecuador

Poland: Escalating Threats to Women Activists

Investigate, Protect Rights Defenders, End Hateful Rhetoric

Mozambique: Pregnant Students, Adolescent Mothers Leave School

Instruct Educators on Obligations, Improve Reproductive Health Services

Human Rights Watch Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee Review of the United Kingdom

February 2024

A Human Rights Guide to the 2024 US Elections

Vital Recommendations for Voters, Candidates, and Supporters of Democracy

The Dangers of Conscientious Objection in Chile’s New Constitution

Philippines: Lawmakers Threaten Rights Body on Abortion

Commission on Human Rights Backtracks After Calls for Defunding

Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child Review of Guatemala

Honduras: joint submission to the committee on the rights of the child at the 97th pre-sessional working group.

Joint submission by Centro de Derechos de Mujeres and Human Rights Watch

South Korea: Reconsider ‘Anonymous Birthing’ Bill

Prioritize Safe Abortions, Comprehensive Sex Education, Support Services

Malawi: Submission the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

86th Session

Daily Brief

Apr 18, 2024

Using Social Media Responsibly; Weekly Quiz!; Quick Takes: Bombing Culture; Climate Crisis; Readers’ Recommendations; Support Our Work!

Get updates on human rights issues from around the globe. Join our movement today.