The fragility of reproductive rights in the United States has never been so clear. From the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, to a quickly growing number of states passing draconian state laws that drastically limit—and in some states, ban—access to safe and legal abortion care, reproductive freedom is under siege at every turn. This difficult reality has elevated the importance of reproductive rights to the forefront of many people’s consciousness. At the same time, the discourse concerning reproductive rights has been narrowly focused and has failed to recognize the scope of reproductive decisionmaking beyond abortion. In addition, the reproductive rights movement has traditionally overlooked the myriad other ways in which marginalized populations, including people with disabilities, experience reproductive oppression.

This Article responds to the contemporary besiege on reproductive freedom and the persistent reproductive oppression experienced by people with disabilities by proposing a vision to help activists, legal professionals, scholars, and policymakers conceive of and articulate the basic contours of a paradigm shift that supports the coalescence of the disability justice and reproductive justice movements. To do so, first the Article examines the origins of weaponizing sexuality and reproduction to subjugate disabled people in the United States. Drawing on legal scholarship and social science research, it then elucidates the scope of the problem by describing the social context and institutions that propagate the sexual and reproductive oppression of people with disabilities and highlights contemporary examples of such injustices. Thereafter, the Article introduces and explores the tenets of two complementary frameworks for analyzing and confronting the reproductive oppression of people with disabilities: disability justice and reproductive justice. Finally, guided by the tenets of disability justice and reproductive justice, it further develops a jurisprudential and legislative framework for achieving and delivering reproductive justice for people with disabilities.

It is well established that parents with disabilities are likely to have adverse experiences within the U.S. child welfare system, including disproportionately high rates of involvement and termination of parental rights. However, no known studies have examined the child welfare system through the lens of ableism. This qualitative phenomenological study included interviews with 15 parents with disabilities, 15 child welfare workers, and 15 attorneys who represent parents. Interviews revealed four levels of ableism within the child welfare system: (1) internalized, (2) interpersonal, (3) institutional, and (4) structural. Participants described their own internalized ableism, offered examples of interpersonal prejudice against disabled parents in the child welfare system, and discussed the institutional practice of using parents’ disabilities as a reason to separate them from their children and deny them services and accommodations. Interviews with parents also revealed that ableism across the child welfare system and other institutions could make it more difficult for them to reunify with their children. At the same time, child welfare workers and attorneys noted that disabled parents are disadvantaged by federally mandated reunification timelines. Ameliorating ableism in the child welfare system requires interventions at each level.

Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, people with disabilities and other historically marginalized communities experienced incessant attacks on their rights. From continuous attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to decreased enforcement of federal disability rights laws, to reductions to social safety net programs, to the intentional disregard of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s presidency threatened nearly every facet of disabled people’s lives. However, even before the Trump administration, people with disabilities experienced a range of pervasive and persistent social, economic, and health inequities. Moreover, many of these injustices endure today—nearly two years since President Trump left office.

The disability rights movement originated in the 1970s with the aim of securing civil rights protections for disabled people. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the disability rights movement’s many achievements, people with disabilities—especially those who live at the intersection of disability and other historically marginalized identities—continue to experience widespread and assiduous injustices. Consequently, elucidating the root causes of these pervasive and persevering inequities is essential to finally confronting them. Importantly, the Trump presidency’s further marginalization of people with disabilities illustrates the fragility of disability rights in the United States and underscores the urgent need to reimagine a more equitable approach to disability rights.

This Article critically examines the panoply of injustices experienced by people with disabilities and demonstrates why the prevailing approach to disability rights is insufficient for challenging the long-lasting and deeply entrenched subjugation of people with disabilities. Then, drawing from the tenets of disability justice, this Article proposes a vision to help activists, legal professionals, scholars, and policymakers conceive of and articulate the basic contours of a paradigm shift that supports reimagining the fight for justice for disabled people in a way that finally disrupts the widespread oppression experienced by disabled people. In particular, the Article suggests normative and transformative legal and policy solutions necessary for achieving and delivering justice for all people with disabilities. In light of the 2020 election and President Joe Biden’s professed commitment to people with disabilities, this Article offers essential and timely insights for reimagining the fight for justice for all people with disabilities by moving beyond the prevailing approach to disability rights and instead adopting disability justice.

The social uprisings following the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and many other people of color elevated the concept of abolition to the forefront of people’s consciousness. Concurrently, there is a burgeoning body of legal scholarship calling for the abolition of the carceral regime. Some scholars also recognize that abolition efforts must include the child welfare system, more accurately termed the family policing system, noting the interdependent relationship between the family policing system and other parts of the carceral regime. Yet, despite the nascent legal scholarship calling for family policing system abolition, parents with disabilities and their children have been mostly disregarded. This Article responds to that scholarly void.

In this Article, I situate the family policing system within the contemporary struggle for the abolition of the carceral regime. My overarching argument is that the family policing system is an unjust social institution for disabled parents and their children. As such, we must work towards abolishing it and replacing it with non-punitive supports and resources for families. First, the Article describes the family policing system and its legal obligations to disabled parents and their children. Drawing on legal scholarship and social science research, it then elucidates the scope of the problem, detailing the injustices and harms that disabled parents and their children experience because of the family policing system. Next, the Article argues that reforms are not sufficient because the family policing system inflicts injustices and harms on disabled parents and their children by design. Thereafter, it limns the tenets of both abolition and disability justice and the ways in which these interconnecting movements, theories, and praxes could advance justice for parents with disabilities through the abolition of the family policing system. Finally, it proposes a novel anti-ableist legal and policy agenda for abolishing the family policing system that is responsive to disabled parents and their children.

The desire to become a parent transcends all identities—including disability. Despite federal disability rights laws, a nascent body of scholarship indicates that parents with disabilities experience substantial and pervasive inequities. Although legal scholars have extensively examined the discrimination that disabled people encounter while parents, there is scant legal scholarship critically evaluating, or even acknowledging, the impediments that people with disabilities experience throughout the process of becoming parents. In particular, legal scholarship has not adequately examined legal and policy barriers that may hinder people with disabilities’ access to health care before, during, and after pregnancy.

This study, conducted in accordance with established methodological practices from the social sciences, responds to this scholarly void and is the first to provide concrete data about the barriers that parents with disabilities experience when accessing health care before, during, and after pregnancy. This study draws original empirical data from qualitative interviews with thirty-eight parents with disabilities. Three themes emerged from the data indicating barriers to health care. First, physical barriers, specifically architectural barriers and inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment, impede parents with disabilities’ access to health care. Second, communication barriers contribute to inaccessible health care for parents with disabilities. Third, programmatic barriers, namely a paucity of policies and procedures about caring for parents with disabilities, negative attitudes, and lack of knowledge among health care providers’, result in health inequities for disabled parents. The Article concludes by discussing potential legal and policy implications of the findings and identifies critical areas for future research.

While it is well-established that parents with disabilities and their families are over-represented in the child welfare system, no known research has described the parents,’ child welfare professionals,’ and attorneys’ perspectives on the system’s capacity to support them or their recommendations for improvement. This qualitative phenomenological study involved semi-structured interviews with 15 disabled parents, 15 child welfare professionals, and 15 parent attorneys. Respondents agreed that the child welfare system lacks expertise on disability and adequate services for disabled parents, and holds negative attitudes about them. Respondents recommended robust training for professionals on parents with disabilities, and individually-tailored services for disabled parents.