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.

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.

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.

Although sexual and reproductive health is critically important for women with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), there is limited research elucidating the role of family caregivers in assisting women with IDD access sexual and reproductive health services and information. Understanding the family caregivers' attitudes and perspectives is essential to improving access to sexual and reproductive health services and information for women with IDD. A cross-sectional online survey of family caregivers of women with IDD was administered between June and October 2018. Quantitative analysis was conducted for closed-ended responses, and qualitative analysis was conducted for open-ended responses. The analytic sample included 132 family caregivers. Most participants were parents and reported being closely involved in their family member's access to sexual and reproductive health services and information. Although most participants expressed that sexual and reproductive health services and information are essential for women with IDD, qualitative analysis of participants' open-ended responses revealed both supportive and restrictive attitudes and perspectives on sexual and reproductive health services and information for women with IDD. Supportive attitudes and perspectives included (1) "knowledge is power;" (2) supported decision-making; and (3) protection against sexual abuse. Restrictive attitudes and perspectives included (1) dependent on the individual; (2) lack of autonomy; and (3) placing responsibility on disability. Greater attention from policymakers and practitioners to systems-level changes, including universal and accessible sexual education for women with IDD, supported decision-making, and sexual abuse prevention measures, are urgently needed.

Parents with disabilities and their families experience pervasive inequities within the child welfare system. However, existing conceptual frameworks do not adequately explain or address the unique needs and experiences of parents with disabilities and their families involved with the child welfare system. Accordingly, we present a conceptual framework that incorporates empirical findings from existing literature while integrating and expanding extant frameworks and models. The conceptual framework, which is aimed at being a starting point from which to investigate child welfare system inequities experienced by disabled parents, includes interrelated factors measured at the contextual, institutional, and individual levels. The paper discusses areas for further research, challenges for researchers, and implications for reducing child welfare system inequities.

Although the fundamental right to raise a family is among our most cherished, it is not equally afforded to everyone. Indeed, the United States has an appalling and enduring history of policing parenthood among people with disabilities. In recent years, the rights of parents with disabilities and their children have garnered unprecedented attention from activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers. Nevertheless, the number of disabled parents who have their parental rights terminated is substantial and growing. As such, the roots of these ongoing injustices must be investigated. To that end, because the family policing system, including termination of parental rights, is primarily governed by state statutes, such an interrogation must begin there.

In response, this Article presents findings from a systematic examination of the inclusion of parental disability in state termination of parental rights laws. Strikingly, using established methodological practices from the social sciences, it reveals that parents in forty-two states and the District of Columbia are at risk of having their parental rights terminated because they are disabled. Even worse, as this Article demonstrates, these numbers have remained essentially unchanged for over a decade. Thus, ableism remains entrenched in state termination of parental rights laws. Finally, drawing on the findings from this investigation, this Article considers normative legal and policy solutions for challenging ableist termination of parental rights statutes as well as areas warranting further inquiry. Reckoning with these statutes is essential to finally confront the irreparable harm inflicted on disabled parents and their children by the family policing system.

The battle to protect abortion rights in the United States has not been this fierce in fifty years. From the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision to a precipitously growing number of states passing draconian laws that drastically limit—and in some states, entirely ban—access to safe and legal abortion services, reproductive freedom is under siege at every turn. The current assault on reproductive freedom has had devastating consequences for all people, but most acutely for historically marginalized communities, including people with disabilities. Critically, this attack most adversely affects people who live at the intersection of disability and other marginalized identities or statuses. Nonetheless, when disability is invoked in discourse concerning abortion, it is typically done to either support or oppose abortions based on fetal disability diagnoses. By framing disability and abortion only in the context of disability- selective abortions, activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers fail to recognize that it is actual disabled people—not hypothetical fetuses with disability diagnoses—who are harmed by abortion restrictions. Indeed, disabled people disproportionately experience pervasive and persistent disadvantages that increase their need for abortion services. They also experience considerable structural, legal, and institutional barriers that already put access to safe and legal abortion out of reach for many.

In response, the Article proposes a blueprint to help activists, scholars, legal professionals, and policymakers as they imagine the next steps in the battle to protect abortion rights in a way that fully includes people with disabilities. First, the Article situates the current battle to protect abortion rights within the social and institutional contexts that propagate reproductive oppression of people with disabilities by examining how reproduction has been weaponized over time to subjugate disabled people as well as presenting contemporary examples of such injustices. Thereafter, it explores disabled people’s unique needs for abortion services and the myriad ways they are disproportionately and adversely affected by restrictions on abortion rights. Next, the Article presents disability reproductive justice, a jurisprudential and legislative framework, and its application to the fight for abortion rights. Finally, drawing from disability reproductive justice, the Article suggests normative and transformative legal and policy solutions for challenging the current assault on abortion rights and its impact on disabled people.