The only thing that is predictable about reproductive rights, specifically abortion, is that there will be an ongoing contestation of power in the public domain over reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
Social Equity in a Post-Roe Environment: Gender, Race, and the Rule of Law, a new book co-authored by The University of Baltimore Prof. Lorenda A. Naylor and Associate Prof. Heather Wyatt-Nichol, examines the many factors contributing to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 overturning of the nation's long-standing legal doctrine on access to abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the resulting upheaval which has led to half of the nation's 50 states either restricting or banning this access. The book, described as an "authoritative analysis of sex- and race-based inequality in America," delves into the laws and policies that affect not only access to abortion, but also contraception, citizenship, voting rights, equal pay, and more.
Dr. Naylor, who serves as professor and director of the University's undergraduate program in Policy, Politics, and International Affairs as well as a Fellow in the University's Schaefer Center for Public Policy, and Dr. Wyatt-Nichol, who teaches primarily in the M.P.A. and D.P.A. programs as well as at the undergraduate level in UBalt's School of Public and International Affairs, see the book as a "story of power, control and agency," in a period of American history in which individual self-determination and autonomy are in question. As colleagues in UBalt's College of Public Affairs, they offer expertise in the existential place where political power and personal viability meet.
"Despite hundreds of federal laws and U.S. Supreme Court decisions prohibiting discrimination based on sex and race, American women and people of color continue to face individual and structural discrimination in our society," according to the book's publisher. "Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973), safe, legal abortion has become inaccessible in approximately half the country, disproportionately impacting low-income women. In regards to political power, although there has been progress such as the election of Kamala Harris as U.S. Vice President and the election of Angela Alsobrooks to the U.S Senate, women and people of color continue to be underrepresented in federal, state, and local elected offices. Similarly, the voting rights of people of color continue to be eroded. And in regards to economic power, women and people of color often do not earn equal pay for equal work, affordable childcare or paid family leave creating an unfair playing field in the quest for the America dream. This book dissects each of these issues by providing a historical account and legal analysis of each policy."
Praise for Social Equity in a Post-Roe Environment is widespread. Meghna Sabharwal, a faculty member in the Public and Nonprofit Management
Program at The University of Texas at Dallas, calls it a "must-read": "This eye-opening
book explores the intersection of sex and race in public administration, revealing
ongoing inequalities for women and people of color in America. The authors skillfully
link social equity, the rule of law, and practical policies." Hillary J. Knepper,
professor and associate provost for Student Success at Pace University, says, "Framed
by social equity, intersectionality, and critical race theories, Social Equity in a Post-Roe America is a call to action. This is a must-read for everyone interested in achieving equity
through contemporary public administration and the rule of law."
In a written Q&A, Profs. Naylor and Wyatt-Nichols answered a few questions about the book:
Q: Describe social equity in a post-Roe era. Should social equity be modernized?
A: The 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe, shifted the legal right to an abortion to the states, significantly decreased women's reproductive rights and limited their ability to choose. In essence, the court removed a woman's federal right to an abortion, which had been granted for approximately 50 years. The overturning of Roe is astonishing and its impact was immediate. With half of the states restricting or banning abortion services altogether, it places the greatest financial burden on low-income women who choose or need to have an abortion due to medical reasons. For example, women who need to travel for abortion services can incur expenses such as hotel, transportation, food, and uncompensated time off from work, which can be substantial for those on a limited income. The impact of the financial incumbrance, which can significantly limit women's access, can't be overstated. It is a deliberate attempt to circumvent a woman's right to choose. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling delivered a significant blow to women's rights and social equity.
Social equity aims to ensure fairness in government policies, service delivery, and public administration (government) in general. It asks, is it fair to take away a constitutional right to abortion that has been guaranteed for the past 50 years? Is it fair to ask women, who are seeking an abortion, in states that ban or restrict abortion to incur expenses they cannot afford? On face value the answer is no. With the overturning of Roe, the question of fairness is front and center. For whom is this decision fair? Now is the time to double down on its importance and significance. Fairness is the foundation of human rights, and it is a core value of our democracy. Fairness, which is synonymous with social equity, goes beyond the Dobbs ruling. It impacts voting rights, election administration, apportionment, political contributions, college admissions, and the role of the administrative state, among others. Citizens need to experience fairness in order to provide legitimacy and validity in our democracy. For example, it is important to ensure free and fair elections in our democracy. Federal policies on voting rights, election administration, and political redistricting are also based on the premise of fairness. People need to believe the election process is fair, that their candidate has a fair chance, that their vote counts, and that a peaceful transition of power will take place. In other words, citizens need to observe a legitimate election process.
The question is not about modernizing the social equity framework, but rather it is about ensuring fairness in government policies, political representation, and power. Fairness is most often determined by those in elected and appointed power (as opposed to civil servants). As such, U.S. Supreme Court rulings must be assessed collectively along with the composition of the Court. The current court composition, 6-3 conservative, combined with recent court decisions, overwhelmingly solidify a conservative legal movement. This includes the overturning of Roe, the shredding of affirmative action in higher education (Student for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellow of Harvard College, 2023), the dismantling of the Voting Rights Act (Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, 2021; Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), and the overturning of the Chevron deference, which provided civil servants with the authority to interpret laws for regulatory agencies (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 2024). Collectively, these court rulings, among others, solidify a conservative judicial movement by appointed public servants who have not been elected.
Q: You describe the book as a call to action. How do you define that call?
The call to action in a post-Roe environment is to ensure that low-income women who are seeking an abortion are provided the financial means to ensure access, as well as the woman's health and safety. In response to Dobbs, both national and state non-profit organizations and women's groups have stepped up to ensure financial access for abortion for women; ensuring access to services across the country. In support of women's rights, we also argue that women should have free access to contraception and to women's health which also includes mammograms and annual exams.
Q: Dobbs appears to be settling in as an imprimatur for states to craft anti-abortion laws as they see fit. There are signs that more changes are coming, e.g., the potential for new cases designed to ban or curb IVF, mifepristone and other drugs, and to make it illegal to assist someone who is seeking an abortion, regardless of the reason. Talk of a national ban on abortion is still happening. At the same time, conversely, voters in several states have approved referenda that have undone many of the anti-abortion regulations that appeared in the wake of Dobbs. What do you make of all of this? Is it possible to predict where the nation (as opposed to individual states or regions) might be going on this topic?
The only thing that is predictable about reproductive rights, specifically abortion, is that there will be an ongoing contestation of power in the public domain over reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. From a sociopolitical-legal perspective, opposition to Roe v. Wade was immediate and persistent over the decades in the form of legal challenges and protests. We are witnessing the same sociopolitical-legal challenges today after the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. Since the Dobbs decision, there has been a patchwork of abortion laws ranging from total prohibition in some states to statutory protection in others. In the 2024 election cycle, abortion was on the ballot in 10 states. According to the Pew Research Center, attitudes toward abortion have remained steady over the past two decades. In 2024, 63 percent of Americans supported legal access to abortion and 36 percent believed that it should be illegal. However, divisions are evident across political, religious, and ideological lines. For example, 73 percent of White evangelical Protestants believe that abortion should be illegal, compared to 64 percent of White nonevangelical Protestants and 71 percent of Black Protestants who believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. Similarly, 57 percent of conservative Republicans believe that abortion should be illegal in most cases, while 67 percent of moderate Republicans believe that it should be legal. In comparison, 96 percent of liberal Democrats and 76 percent of conservative to moderate Democrats support abortion access.
The future of abortion access will depend on the outcomes of federal and state elections, judicial decisions by a conservative Supreme Court, and public engagement through ballot measures. At the federal level, new cases are emerging to restrict access to mifepristone nationwide, and to prohibit interstate travel for abortion services. This reflects the expansive reach of post-Dobbs legal challenges. Ultimately, the U.S. is likely to see continued contestation of reproductive rights in the courts, legislatures, and at the ballot box. The legal and sociopolitical battles will endure, given the diverse ideological perspectives of American citizens.
Q: Finally, at the time of the case, many commentators pointed out that the Supreme Court hasn't removed a right from public life in a long, long time. But vulnerable people of all kinds might not see it that way. Is it incorrect to think of Dobbs as an aberrant matter, or is it just one of those times when a federal case has impacted people across class, race, age, etc.? Can you think of another case that singled out women in the way that Dobbs did?
The Dobbs decision reflects the ideological shift in the composition of Supreme Court Justices. A 2022 longitudinal study by Jessee, Malhotra, and Sen reveals that the Supreme Court is further to the ideological right than the majority of Americans. This ideological shift has manifested in decisions like Dobbs, which represent a reassertion of state power over individual rights, especially concerning reproductive autonomy. The shift has also impacted decisions pertaining to race, ranging from voting rights to college admissions. The Dobbs decision also reflects a departure from traditional legal analysis of substantive due process under the 14th Amendment, which had long been used to safeguard intimate, personal decisions, such as those in Griswold v. Connecticut (privacy in contraception) and Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) and, of course, Roe v. Wade (abortion rights). Pro-choice advocates contend that the Dobbs decision undermines substantive rights and limits personal autonomy. Pro-life advocates contend that the Dobbs decision restores states' rights over controversial policies such as abortion access. The tension between judicial review and democratic governance through our system of federalism underscores the ongoing contestation over reproductive rights in the United States.
Learn more about Profs. Lorena Naylor and Heather Wyatt-Nichol.
Learn more about The University of Baltimore's College of Public Affairs.
The University of Baltimore is a member of the University System of Maryland and comprises the College of Public Affairs, the Merrick School of Business, The University of Baltimore School of Law and the Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences.