Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges, marriage remains out of reach for millions of disabled people. While explicit bans on interracial and same-sex marriage have fallen, disabled people navigate a sophisticated web of discrimination that operates across legal, economic, institutional, and cultural domains. Guardianship laws strip away decision-making authority, benefit programs impose devastating marriage penalties that force impossible choices between love and survival, institutional policies prevent relationship formation, and cultural narratives render disabled people invisible as potential partners. These interlocking barriers make marriage effectively unattainable for many.

This Article charts a path forward through constitutional litigation, benefit reform, guardianship transformation, and cultural change—recognizing that piecemeal fixes cannot dismantle a system built to exclude. True marriage equality demands more than legal recognition on paper—it requires dismantling the obstacles that keep constitutional rights theoretical for millions of Americans. The systematic denial of marriage choice reflects deeper societal failures to recognize disabled people’s full humanity, autonomy, and citizenship. Constitutional promises of liberty and equality must extend beyond formal recognition to encompass the material conditions necessary for their meaningful exercise, and the systematic exclusion of disabled people from marriage represents a profound failure of these constitutional commitments that demands immediate and comprehensive redress.

Child welfare systems are increasingly adopting algorithmic decision-making (ADM) tools, but there has been limited work assessing the impact of such tools on people with disabilities. We address this gap by examining the Allegheny Family Screening Tool (AFST) for disability-related bias. We obtained variables and coefficients used in the AFST from the Allegheny County Department of Human Services. We used data from the American Community Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, and National Survey on Drug Use and Health to assess whether disabled parents and children would receive worse AFST scores compared to their non-disabled counterparts. Parents and children with disabilities were significantly more likely to be penalized by all elements of the AFST scoring we examined. These include socioeconomic indicators, healthcare utilization patterns, involvement with public benefits programs, and contact with the criminal legal system. Despite containing no explicit disability measures, the AFST effectively encodes disability status through proxy variables, potentially subjecting disabled parents and their children to disproportionate scrutiny and intervention. The AFST may reinforce rather than remedy historical biases against parents with disabilities, raising important questions about the role of algorithmic tools in public sector decision-making.

Studies have documented pervasive ableism faced by disabled parents within the child welfare system. However, the experiences of disabled parents facing multiple forms of oppression in this context remain understudied. Recognizing the heterogeneity of disabled parents, this study investigated intersectional oppression from the perspective of attorneys who represent disabled parents in child welfare cases. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 attorneys in the United States who represent disabled parents in child welfare cases. Content analysis revealed three main themes related to the experiences and outcomes of disabled parents facing intersectional oppression: systemic mechanisms of oppression, intermediate impacts, and ultimate outcomes. Drivers of intersectional oppression included system structure and institutional barriers, power dynamics, and cross-system interactions. Intermediate impacts encompassed the child welfare system’s response and parent experiences, whereas ultimate outcomes included case outcomes and long-term family impact. Addressing intersectional oppression faced by disabled parents necessitates substantive and comprehensive system restructuring, including rules, statutes, practices, and services that currently punish and marginalize affected disabled parents. Paired with structural and policy reform, intersectional training must also be required for all professionals involved with the system to erode individual-level bias.

Parents with intellectual disabilities (ID) frequently encounter ableism within the child welfare system, particularly in termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings. To uncover ideological forces contributing to existing disparities, this study examines how historically rooted eugenic ideology manifests in current TPR proceedings involving parents labeled with ID. Using content analysis methods, 25 cases revealed three primary manifestations of eugenic ideology: pathologization of parental disability, privileging of Western medical science, and imposition of unreasonable standards and expectations. These manifestations contribute to a punishment and blame dynamic that ignores structural inequity, requiring comprehensive reform on multiple levels (e.g. legal, systemic, and practice).

This study examines clinician attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions regarding perinatal care of women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) from the perspectives of both clinicians and women with IDD. We conducted semistructured individual interviews with women (n = 16) and individual interviews and one focus group with clinicians (n = 17). Data were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Analysis revealed both supportive and restrictive categories. Supportive: (a) accommodating needs, (b) respecting autonomy, and (c) supporting motherhood. Restrictive: (a) unwillingness to accommodate, (b) assumptions about decision-making capacity, (c) questioning parenting abilities, and (d) biased contraception and sterilization practices. Clinician training to address attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions is needed to improve perinatal care for women with IDD.

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.