State abortion bans based on gender, disability, or race are not a remedy for eugenics, paper says

in his 2019 opinion box v parentage, Judge Clarence Thomas wrote an impassioned letter of consent describing abortion based on sex, disability, or race as a form of “modern eugenics.” He defended Indiana’s cause-based abortion ban as a necessary antidote to these practices. Inspired by this consensus, state legislatures have increasingly enacted similar bills and laws as a precaution against “eugenics.” The underlying discrimination and the racial disparity caused by eugenics.

New research published by Journal of Law and Biological Sciences Sonia M. Suter, a law professor at George Washington University and founding director of the Health Law Initiative, said the motivation behind such a ban was performance, and proponents wanted to limit reproductive rights. Her research found that reason-based abortion bans were effective against groups affected by the eugenics movement: minorities, women, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, immigrants, and women. , etc.) have been found to cause real harm.

In Why Reason-Based Abortion Ban Isn’t the Remedy for Eugenics: An Empirical Study, Suter challenges the anti-eugenic promises of sex, disability, or race-based abortion bans and argues that Out-of-context abortion policies by investigating whether states with similar laws have anti-eugenics legislation.

This paper explores eugenic or anti-eugenics by comparing states with and without abortion bans with laws on sterilization, conjugal visitation, incest, assisted reproductive technology, substance use during pregnancy, and prenatal information laws. We explored three areas that could have a positive impact. , bans on false birth and life claims, and laws that affect the U.S. population through immigration and incarceration.

Suter writes: The reason-based abortion ban “anti-eugenics” project is helping make eugenics more possible than ever. ”