In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states have rushed to enact restrictive abortion bans, often with vague and narrow health exceptions that disproportionately endanger the lives and well-being of people with disabilities. This Article argues that focusing on the disproportionate impact of these laws on disabled people is a critical strategy for dismantling the broader attack on reproductive freedom. It examines the deficiencies of current health exceptions, critiquing their subjective language, inconsistent application, and failure to account for the complexities of medical emergencies, particularly in the context of disability. The Article highlights the omission of mental health considerations and clashes between state and federal laws. Furthermore, it explores how these bans exacerbate existing barriers disabled people face when seeking healthcare while ignoring the disproportionately high risks of pregnancy-related complications and maternal mortality among the disability community. Drawing on constitutional arguments, the Article contends that even under rational basis review, these bans lack a legitimate governmental interest and instead perpetuate discrimination by contradicting core disability rights principles of bodily autonomy and self-determination. It explores potential avenues for challenging these laws, including leveraging state constitutional provisions, expanding health exceptions, and protecting abortion providers through statutory presumptions and burden-shifting provisions. The Article emphasizes the importance of moving beyond a purely medicalized framing of abortion rights and toward a more holistic, intersectional vision of reproductive justice that fully includes and empowers the disability community. It concludes with a call for robust coalition-building between the disability rights and reproductive justice movements to drive incremental change and ensure that reproductive autonomy is respected and protected for all.

The child welfare system, more accurately referred to as the family policing system, employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families and subjects them to relentless oversight. Scholars observe that this ongoing surveillance obstructs effective parenting, exacerbates existing injustices, and contradicts the system’s stated protective purpose. Instead of safeguarding families, surveillance becomes a tool to control those it should assist, particularly the already vulnerable. This Article extends the analysis of the family policing system’s surveillance practices to encompass parents with disabilities and their children, revealing the unique consequences of continuous observation. The system’s ableism amplifies scrutiny of disabled parents, disregarding their disability- related needs and causing harm under the guise of protection. This persistent surveillance culminates in heightened systemic harm, trapping families in an inescapable cycle of perpetual scrutiny.

This Article provides a nuanced and novel analysis of the family policing system and its extensive surveillance targeted at disabled parents and their children. It begins by detailing the legal framework that supports the surveillance apparatus, investigating constitutional protections, federal and state statutes, and disability rights laws. The exploration then turns to the intricate network of surveillance mechanisms that ensnare disabled parents and their families. This pervasive scrutiny includes mandated reporting, family policing system investigations, “service” plans, child maltreatment registries, and digital surveillance tools. Subsequently, this Article uncovers the harms arising from such surveillance, both directly and within the broader context of societal injustice. Concluding with a call to action, this Article proposes normative legal and policy solutions to challenge the system’s surveillance. These measures include revising the definition of neglect, constraining the system’s scope of surveillance, establishing rights akin to Miranda warnings, revoking mandated reporting laws, ensuring prompt access to legal representation, and reimagining support systems for families. These solutions must be integrated into broader initiatives aimed at abolishing the family policing system entirely, freeing marginalized families from the cycle of being pathologized, controlled, and punished. Ultimately, the only path to liberating disabled parents and their children from perpetual scrutiny is through the complete dismantling of the family policing system, ensuring they are no longer under the watchful eye of all.

This qualitative study explored the perceptions and experiences of 16 mothers with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) regarding their interactions with the child welfare system during the perinatal period. Adverse themes included fear of child removal, wariness of the healthcare system, insufficient assistance, and trauma and stress. Positive themes included support from others and believing in one’s self. Findings underscore the need for disability cultural competence, non-discrimination, family preservation, enhanced support, self-advocacy, and family-centered care across perinatal and child welfare systems to improve equity for mothers with IDD and their children. Further research is warranted.

The history of the United States is marred by a shameful record of using reproduction to oppress disabled people through state-sanctioned legislation, policies, and programs that deprive them of their bodily autonomy and self-determination. Disabled people face structural, legal, and institutional barriers to accessing reproductive health services and information, including contraception and abortion care. They also experience high rates of violence and reproductive coercion, as well as stigma and discrimination from health providers. Consequently, people with disabilities are more likely to experience maternal morbidity and mortality, rendering pregnancy particularly dangerous for some.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision exacerbates this complex and challenging situation. Mounting abortion restrictions, coupled with the myriad barriers and challenges that people with disabilities already face, will result in some being forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they pose serious health risks or go against their wishes. Subsequently, should they choose to raise their children after childbirth, they will likely encounter ongoing threats to their parental rights due to pervasive assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system’s laws, policies, and practices. Thus, the ruling creates a paradox for disabled people, where they may be forced to bear children but subsequently denied the opportunity to rear them, perpetuating a historical pattern of exploitation and subjugation.

In response, this Article presents a nuanced and novel analysis of the Dobbs decision and its implications for people with disabilities. To do so, first, the Article examines the profound impact of forced pregnancy on disabled people, delving into the underlying reasons for high rates of unintended pregnancies among this group. It also highlights the dangers and violations of bodily autonomy and self-determination that forced pregnancy entails for disabled people. Next, the Article’s focus shifts to the denial of parenting rights for people with disabilities, even after being compelled to bear children, exploring the societal, legal, and institutional obstacles that hinder their ability to parent, such as assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system. Thereafter, it introduces the concept of disability reproductive justice and its relevance to these complex issues, providing a framework based on the principles of disability justice and reproductive justice to transform society into one that respects and supports disabled people’s reproductive freedom. Finally, the Article proposes legal and policy solutions guided by the principles of disability reproductive justice to address the reproductive needs of disabled people and dismantle the systemic causes of reproductive oppression, emphasizing the necessity of a comprehensive approach considering the rising threat to reproductive freedom.

Building upon the foundation laid by All Our Families: Disability Lineage and the Future of Kinship, this Review examines the complex issues surrounding care and their relevance to people with disabilities. Part I delves into the contrasting perspectives of the disability rights movement and disability justice. By juxtaposing the emphasis on independence with a focus on interdependence, I unravel the intricate dynamics shaping the care experiences of disabled people. Part II presents a descriptive analysis unveiling the current realities of care. In doing so, I seek to expose the limited availability and access to care, the legal and bureaucratic impediments hindering effective care delivery, and the pervasive inequities faced by both unpaid and paid caregivers. Finally, Part III proposes a normative vision for reimagining care. I suggest strategies for broadening availability and access to care, challenging legal and bureaucratic impediments to care, confronting caregiver inequities, and fostering mutual aid networks within disabled communities. This Review’s analysis of care issues and transformative proposals aims to enrich disability, health, and family law discourse, providing valuable insights and shaping discussions and actions toward more inclusive and equitable legal frameworks and practices.

The Supreme Court has thrust abortion onto ballots nationwide, transforming fundamental rights into political battlegrounds. In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, people with disabilities face a perfect storm of eroded reproductive freedoms and persistent barriers to democratic participation. This Article exposes the hollow promise of the Court’s purported deference to “the people’s elected representatives,” revealing instead a landscape where those most affected by abortion restrictions struggle to have their voices heard. The Court’s invocation of democracy is arguably disingenuous, serving more as a rhetorical device than a genuine commitment to democratic principles. Nevertheless, engaging with this framing is crucial, as it now shapes the terrain on which reproductive freedom must be defended and advanced. The Dobbs decision not only dismantles reproductive rights but also lays bare the deep inequities in our democratic processes. For disabled people, this opinion amplifies existing challenges, subjecting them to heightened health risks, diminished healthcare access, increased economic insecurity, and further assaults on their bodily autonomy—all while their ability to influence relevant policies remains constrained

This Article contributes to the post-Dobbs discourse by proposing a radical reimagining of reproductive justice and disability rights advocacy within the imposed democratic framework. It introduces a dual strategy that combines tactical engagement with existing democratic systems and bold efforts to transform entrenched injustices. The Article outlines concrete pathways for empowering people with disabilities in the reproductive justice movement, including methods to shape public opinion, leverage lobbying, mobilize voting power, and increase disabled representation in political office. This innovative framework aims to achieve true reproductive freedom—grounded in bodily autonomy, self-determination, and dignity for all. Ultimately, it argues that confronting the democratic deficits facing the disability community is not just crucial for safeguarding reproductive freedom but essential for exposing and dismantling the Court’s flawed reasoning in Dobbs. With abortion rights now subject to the vicissitudes of electoral politics, this Article charts a course toward a more inclusive democracy—one that amplifies marginalized voices and reimagines reproductive justice in the complex post-Dobbs era.