Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Does overruling Roe discriminate against women (of colour)?
  1. Joona Räsänen,
  2. Claire Gothreau,
  3. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen
  1. CEPDISC - Centre for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joona Räsänen, CEPDISC - Centre for the Experimental-Philosophical Study of Discrimination, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, 8000, Denmark; joona.rasanen{at}ps.au.dk

Abstract

On 24 July 2022, the landmark decision Roe v. Wade (1973), that secured a right to abortion for decades, was overruled by the US Supreme Court. The Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation severely restricts access to legal abortion care in the USA, since it will give the states the power to ban abortion. It has been claimed that overruling Roe will have disproportionate impacts on women of color and that restricting access to abortion contributes to or amounts to structural racism. In this paper, we consider whether restricting abortion access as a consequence of overruling Roe could be understood as discrimination against women of color (and women in general). We argue that banning abortion is indirectly discriminatory against women of color and directly (but neither indirectly, nor structurally) discriminatory against women in general.

  • Abortion - Induced
  • Feminism
  • Public Policy
  • Women's rights

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors wrote and edited the manuscript equally. All authors accepted the final version. JR is acting as guarantor.

  • Funding This study was funded by The Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF144).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.