{"id":12245,"date":"2026-04-01T18:42:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-01T18:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/?p=12245"},"modified":"2026-04-01T18:42:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-01T18:42:18","slug":"gender-power-and-the-stories-abortion-laws-tell","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/2026\/04\/01\/gender-power-and-the-stories-abortion-laws-tell\/","title":{"rendered":"Gender, Power, and the Stories Abortion Laws Tell"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n Luna J. Slater, Brooke A. de Heer, and Emily M. Schneider, <\/span>“Victimhood and ‘Compassionate’ Exceptions as Patriarchal Social Control in Anti-abortion Legislation,” Feminist Criminology<\/em>,<\/a><\/span> 2024<\/span><\/div>\n\n
\"\"<\/a>
A close-up photo of a gavel as a judge signs a document in the background. “Judge Signing on the Papers”<\/a> by Katrin Bolovtsova<\/a> is licensed under\u00a0CC BY 2.0 in pexels.<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As U.S. states pass increasingly strict abortion laws, debates often focus on legal rights and restrictions. But what other messages are these laws sending about gender and power? To explore this question, researchers Luna J. Slater<\/a>, Brooke A. de Heer<\/a>, and Emily M. Schneider<\/a> analyzed the language of 18 of the most restrictive state abortion bans enacted between 2018 and 2022. Their findings<\/a> reveal how these laws portray abortion seekers as victims, prioritize physical health over mental health, and create bureaucratic hurdles for pregnant people who\u2019ve experienced sexual violence \u2013 ultimately reinforcing unequal power dynamics and diminishing women\u2019s autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>Of the laws analyzed, most bans avoid criminalizing people seeking abortions and instead outline punishments for doctors and clinics. The authors argue that this enforces a narrative of abortion seekers as coerced or incapable of making independent medical decisions. Many of these bans also describe abortion procedures as being performed on<\/em> the pregnant person, rather than as choices made by<\/em> them. For example, Missouri\u2019s HB 126 (2019) describes the pregnant person as the \u201cwoman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced.\u201d The authors argue that such wording ultimately portrays women as innocent, subordinate, and passive recipients of care rather than decision-makers.The authors argue that such wording ultimately portrays women as innocent, subordinate, and passive recipients of care rather than decision-makers.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While all analyzed bans include exceptions to save the pregnant person’s life, nearly every state limits them to physical conditions, not psychological ones. The authors argue this reinforces the view of pregnant people as vessels for birth rather than individuals whose overall well-being \u2013 including mental health \u2013 matters. This approach further diminishes the autonomy and rights of pregnant individuals by restricting their access to care based on a narrow definition of medical necessity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fewer than half of the bans analyzed included exceptions for cases of rape and incest. Of those that did, 75% required the pregnant person to formally report the rape to law enforcement or a medical provider to qualify. Some laws went even further \u2013 such as Iowa\u2019s SF 359, which demands that the rape be reported \u201cwithin forty-five days of the incident.\u201d <\/em>These legal conditions place an additional burden on pregnant people who have experienced sexual violence, forcing them to navigate complex bureaucratic and legal systems to justify their need for reproductive healthcare. In doing so, such laws reinforce patriarchal control by limiting reproductive rights and forcing pregnant people to engage with systems that may disregard their safety, dignity, and well-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The restrictive abortion laws analyzed in this study go beyond policy \u2013 they shape public perceptions of autonomy, health, and justice. By framing abortion seekers as victims, excluding mental health considerations, and imposing burdensome requirements on those who have experienced rape or incest, these laws reinforce gendered inequalities that extend far beyond the issue of abortion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Luna J. Slater, Brooke A. de Heer, and Emily M. Schneider, “Victimhood and ‘Compassionate’ Exceptions as Patriarchal Social Control in Anti-abortion Legislation,” Feminist Criminology, 2024 As U.S. states pass increasingly strict abortion laws, debates often focus on legal rights and restrictions. But what other messages are these laws sending about gender and power? To explore […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2227,"featured_media":12246,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,55,33,85],"tags":[140969,141945,141940,141957,141968,141999,141990,141981,141948,141942,141979,141961,141952,40742,141989,141975,141953,141982,141944,141995,141977,141943,27654,2777,141992,11306,140247,2778,141964,139806,138180,139629,139646,141996,141962,141966,141985,141998,141969,138621,139396,139377,141177,141947,141955,141941,141980,141993,141983,141971,2994,141976,141956,141949,138631,141958,141970,141954,141987,140226,141959,141973,141902,141984,139130,9084,141960,141972,141963,141974,122380,141988,140964,2079,21752,141950,141997,141991,4632,141978,3497,26524,141994,141967,140408,139640,140412,141965,141946,141951,141986,140990,21925,140948],"class_list":["post-12245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-crime","category-gender","category-health","category-politics","tag-abortion-bans","tag-abortion-debate","tag-abortion-laws","tag-abortion-seekers","tag-access-to-abortion","tag-autonomy-and-agency","tag-autonomy-in-medicine","tag-autonomy-restriction","tag-autonomy-vs-control","tag-bodily-autonomy","tag-bodily-rights","tag-bureaucratic-hurdles","tag-clinic-regulation","tag-coercion","tag-decision-making-rights","tag-discourse-analysis","tag-doctor-liability","tag-ethical-concerns","tag-feminist-analysis","tag-feminist-critique","tag-feminist-research","tag-gender-and-power","tag-gender-bias","tag-gender-discrimination","tag-gender-hierarchy","tag-gender-inequality","tag-gender-politics","tag-gender-roles","tag-gendered-language","tag-health-policy","tag-healthcare-access","tag-healthcare-inequality","tag-healthcare-justice","tag-healthcare-policy-critique","tag-incest-exceptions","tag-inequality-in-healthcare","tag-inequality-in-law","tag-intersection-of-law-and-gender","tag-iowa-sf-359","tag-justice-system","tag-law-and-society","tag-law-enforcement","tag-legal-barriers","tag-legal-discourse","tag-legal-framing","tag-legal-language","tag-legal-narratives","tag-legal-obligations","tag-legal-power-structures","tag-legal-requirements","tag-legislation","tag-linguistic-framing","tag-marginalized-voices","tag-medical-decision-making","tag-medical-ethics","tag-mental-health-exclusion","tag-missouri-hb-126","tag-passive-language","tag-passive-voice","tag-patriarchy","tag-physical-health-prioritization","tag-policy-analysis","tag-power-dynamics","tag-public-health-policy","tag-public-perception","tag-public-policy","tag-rape-exceptions","tag-reporting-deadlines","tag-reporting-requirements","tag-reproductive-autonomy","tag-reproductive-control","tag-reproductive-freedom","tag-reproductive-healthcare","tag-reproductive-justice","tag-reproductive-rights","tag-restrictive-laws","tag-rights-and-restrictions","tag-sexual-assault-policy","tag-sexual-violence","tag-social-implications","tag-social-justice","tag-social-norms","tag-sociopolitical-analysis","tag-state-legislation","tag-structural-barriers","tag-structural-inequality","tag-systemic-oppression","tag-trauma-and-policy","tag-u-s-states","tag-victim-narrative","tag-victimization-framing","tag-womens-autonomy","tag-womens-health","tag-womens-rights"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/files\/2026\/04\/pexels-ekaterina-bolovtsova-6077447-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2227"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12245"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12251,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12245\/revisions\/12251"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12246"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/discoveries\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}