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.