Professor Edits Special Reproductive Justice Issue of Journal.
Professor Edits Special Reproductive Justice Issue of Journal
Nicole Huberfeld co-edited the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics issue “Seeking Reproductive Justice in the Next 50 Years,” which commemorates the would-be 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by exploring what the future might look like with the landmark supreme court decision overturned.
Nicole Huberfeld, the Edward R. Utley Professor of Health Law, Ethics, & Human Rights, co-edited an issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics (JLME) that expands on discussions initiated at a School of Public Health and School of Law symposium on the future of reproductive justice.
Huberfeld, a professor of health law, policy and management who also holds an appointment as a professor of law at BU Law, collaborated with colleagues Aziza Ahmed, a professor of law, and Linda McClain, the Robert Kent Professor of Law, to guest edit the issue, titled “Seeking Reproductive Justice in the Next 50 Years.” Comprised of 25 articles and an introduction authored by the trio, the recently published issue complements an SPH and BU Law conference held early last year.
The conference convened more than 200 scholars, lawyers, and public health professionals to discuss the sweeping implications of the US Supreme Court’s recent decisions, investigate potential factors in their development, and contemplate the path forward. The complex issues and challenges deliberated by the panelists and their audiences formed the inspiration for the articles in the symposium issue of the journal.
Huberfeld, Ahmed, and McClain organized the conference as an opportunity to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision safeguarding abortion rights over the past five decades. During their planning of the event, however, the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization leaked, revealing the court’s intentions to overturn Roe, return the regulation of abortion to state control, and jeopardize the very rights Huberfeld and her colleagues intended to celebrate. Forced to pivot, the team quickly re-envisioned the symposium to focus on the future of reproductive justice.
“We wanted to recognize that there are many features to how people of reproductive age are impacted by decisions like Roe and now Dobbs, so we really did bring together lots of different kinds of perspectives—constitutional law scholars, legal historians, public health experts, medical experts, policy experts. [The issue] is incredibly multidisciplinary and broad in scope,” says Huberfeld.
Among those to present at the conference and author an article was George Annas, a professor in the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, School of Law, and Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine; the director of the Center for Health Law, Ethics and Human Rights; and the William Fairfield Warren Distinguished Professor at BU. Annas, who is also the founding editor of JLME, describes in his piece, “(Re)criminalizing Abortion: Returning to the Political with Stories,” how advocates have historically used storytelling to advance women’s rights and the reproductive justice movement. Annas suggests that stories, such as those centering the lived experience of people who have undergone abortions or physicians who have performed abortions, will again prove important in the post-Dobbs era.
Michael Ulrich, an associate professor in the Department of Health Law, Policy and Management and at BU Law, coauthored an article titled “Continuous Reproductive Surveillance” where he explores whether state regulation of pregnancy post-Dobbs will lead to expanded development and adoption of technologies for more closely monitor reproduction. He notes that, due to their association with birth defects, obtaining certain medications, such as the acne treatment isotretinoin, already requires participation in invasive monitoring programs. Ulrich concludes that to establish the limits of government power, scholars will need to consider various theoretical scenarios, including seemingly unlikely or extreme ones such as his own contemplations of reproductive surveillance.
“If people are afraid to work with pregnant people and their health issues, then their health will suffer. That is very straightforward.
Huberfeld hopes that by consulting experts from a range of disciplines and capturing a spectrum of perspectives, such as those presented by Annas and Ulrich, the issue will serve as a timeless educational tool, particularly for healthcare workers. Huberfeld says she frequently presents to medical professionals seeking clarity on the implications of Dobbs and its impact on their work. Expressing deep concern, she notes the prevailing atmosphere of fear, misinformation, and misunderstanding regarding the status of the law.
“If people are afraid to work with pregnant people and their health issues, then their health will suffer. That is very straightforward. We need to be working together on not just research, but also the work of translation—to help people in different fields understand what is happening and what can and should be done going forward,” says Huberfeld. “We cannot be siloed, we need to be talking to each other, working with each other, and learning from one another.”
Huberfeld also aims to build bridges at BU, where with Ahmed and McClain she directs the BU Program for Reproductive Justice. The program strives to develop a workforce skilled in reproductive justice and works with donors to support student involvement in the field. She looks forward to an upcoming symposium “Advancing Pregnant Persons’ Right to Life,” which the program has co-organized with Northeastern University’s Center for Health Policy and Law and the Center for Reproductive Rights to examine how different definitions of life might protect not only fetuses, but also pregnant people.
Acutely aware of the elections on the horizon, Huberfeld has numerous other ideas in the pipeline, she says. But for now, she is just pleased to see the reproductive justice issue of JLME published. These are bipartisan issues, she says, “Chances are good that everyone is going to need reproductive care at some point in their life, whether it is [for] them or [for] someone they love. We were all born, and we want the people who are born after us to be born healthy and well, so having the full range of reproductive care is really important, and I think people are recognizing that.”
