How Overturning Roe Spreads the Gender-Based Violence Pandemic
By Apryl A. Alexander and Emma Sower
This piece is a part of our Spark Series Reproductive Justice as a Human Right
Gender-based violence is a global public health issue, and refers to physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse, threats, or coercion that is directed at an individual based on their sex or gender identity. The World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations, and other leading health and advocacy organizations have deemed gender-based violence a pandemic, due to the widespread incidence of interpersonal violence against women and girls across the globe. For instance, approximately 1 in 4 women in the United States experience gender-based violence in their lifetime, and every 90 seconds a woman is sexually assaulted.
Loss of reproductive rights and decision-making can subject victims of gender-based violence to further harm. The Dobbs decision, which essentially overturned nearly 50 years of legal protections of Roe v. Wade, created a pathway for states to limit or eliminate access to abortion and other forms of reproductive healthcare. This decision severely hinders bodily autonomy and reproductive healthcare access for Americans, and public health professionals have noted how the Dobbs decision has contributed to increased gender-based violence across the country.
For instance, lack of access to reproductive healthcare has consequences for victims of all forms of gender-based violence, including childhood sexual abuse victims and victims of human trafficking. Researchers have found that up to 25% of women have terminated a pregnancy have experienced recent acts of gender-based violence. During a time when the leading cause of death of pregnant and postpartum women is homicide, policymakers and stakeholders need to think critically about the connection between gender-based violence, reproductive justice, and women’s health and safety. Victims of gender-based violence deserve to have autonomy over their bodies and reproductive decisions as a basic human right.
Reproductive Coercion and Gender-Based Violence during COVID-19
Reproductive coercion is a type of gender-based violence that involves interference with autonomous decision-making for a person’s reproductive health. This could include controlling the outcome of a pregnancy, birth control interference, and pregnancy coercion. Researchers have found that reproductive coercion disproportionately affects women of lower socioeconomic status, single women, and African American, Latina, and multiracial women. For instance, Black women who rely on their partners financially are more likely to have face reproductive coercion. Historically, restricting reproductive access has been a method of state-sanctioned control over women of color’s bodies, and places women at additional risk for gender-based violence when they are unable to terminate a pregnancy, make autonomous decisions about their bodies, and/or leave or end an unsafe relationship. Victims of intimate partner violence who are forced to carry a child to term often experience continued violence, and forced birth is a form of gender-based violence.
The Dobbs decision was rendered during the COVID-19 global pandemic, during which we witnessed increased rates of gender-based violence and reproductive coercion. The social isolation due to the government-sanctioned stay-at-home and quarantine orders during COVID-19 pandemic created unique incidents of coercive control. For instance, one study found that individuals who inflict harm on their partners would threaten or punish victims to engaging in unacceptable quarantine behaviors (i.e., calling the victim selfish for going on walks) or make false pregnancy claims to authorities. These forms of reproductive coercion and gender-based violence occurred alongside reduced access to support services, such as case management and in-person psychosocial supports. Thus, the Dobbs decision made reproductive coercion even more complex, as victims of gender-based violence, including victims of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, and rape, had fewer options, particularly as states also restricted access to emergency contraception, such as Plan B.
The legal ramifications of the Dobbs decision on access to abortion and other types of reproductive care make victims of gender-based violence vulnerable and jeopardize their safety. For example, in cases of intimate partner violence, coercive behaviors are often used by the person inflicting harm to assert power and control over them, and in relation to reproduction, may be used to force a person to carry a pregnancy to term or to stay within an unsafe and dangerous relationship
Using Reproductive Justice to Address Gender-Based Violence: Policy Recommendations
Gender-based violence is preventable and we all must be invested in ending this pandemic. Victims of gender-based violence are vulnerable for further violence when their reproductive choices are limited. Reproductive justice allows individuals to maintain personal bodily autonomy (i.e., one’s right to control what does or does not happen to their body without influence or coercion). Without such, it places many in a vulnerable position for continued harm from reproductive coercion and other forms of gender-based violence. Reproductive justice intersects with racial, gender, and disability justice given the populations disproportionately affected laws restricting access to reproductive health care. As such, we provide three main areas of recommendation for policymakers to consider.
We must prevent the criminalization of abortion to prevent victims of gender-based violence from experiencing additional victimization and reproductive coercion. Not only are states introducing legislation to restrict or ban access to abortion, but bills are also being introduced that would have legal ramifications ranging from felonies to death penalty for having an abortion, aiding someone who wants an abortion, or medical doctors who conduct an abortion. This will lead to even less bodily autonomy, as individuals will be under surveillance state. Criminalizing abortions will further stigmatize people with uteruses who terminate pregnancies or have miscarriages, thus making the legal system function as a secondary victimization, beyond the initial gender-based violence they have experienced, by failing to protect survivors. Ultimately, we recommend that right to abortion and access to reproductive healthcare be codified into law.
As states restrict access to safe abortions, victims of GBV need access to wraparound resources and services that provide shelter, healthcare, and legal supports to survivors in immediate need. In May 2023, the COVID-19 public health emergency declarations ended. This will result in a further disruption of health and mental health care systems for victims of GBV. Safety nets should be put into place, such as referrals for healthcare and reproductive care services, to ensure continuum of care of services for victims.
Finally, there needs to be a global charge to address gender-based violence. Much of the focus and money centers on supporting victims; however, what if there were no more victims? Prevention of gender-based violence can happen early. For instance, there are prevention programs for youth, such as Dating Matters, that been deemed ‘promising practices’ by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the prevention of teen dating violence. If we can inoculate against the COVID-19 virus and end its pandemic, we can help end the pandemic of gender-based violence through advocating for reproductive justice.
Dr. Apryl A. Alexander (she/her) is the Metrolina Distinguished Scholar in Health & Public Policy and an Associate Professor in Public Health Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Twitter: @DrAprylA & web: www.aprylalexander.com
Emma Sower (she/her) is a PhD student in Clinical Psychology at Palo Alto University. She is a member of the Developmentally Informed Policy and Practice Lab (DIPP), and her research focuses on sexual offending, intimate partner violence, self-defense laws, and culturally responsive practices.
