In “Why reason-based abortion bans are not a remedy against eugenics: an empirical study”, Suter challenges the allegedly anti-eugenic promise of abortion bans based on sex, disability or race by examining whether states with such laws have anti-eugenic legislative policies outside the context of abortion. The paper looked at three areas that can have eugenic-like or anti-eugenic effects by comparing states with and without abortion bans that also have laws that concern sterilization, conjugal visits, incest, assisted reproductive technology, substance use during pregnancy, prenatal information laws, and bans on wrongful birth and life claims, as well as laws that influence U.S. population through immigration and incarceration. Her analysis also looked at state’s infant mortality rates and gender pay gaps.
Suter wrote that “by exploring eugenics concerns in the terms offered to justify reason-based abortion bans, one sees how empty those stated concerns are when RBA-ban states largely fail to address them across several areas unrelated to abortion…. In short, the ‘anti-eugenics’ project of reason-based abortion bans has helped make eugenics more possible today than ever.”
Sonia Suter is available for interviews on this topic. If you would like to interview Professor Suter please contact us at:
GW Media Relations
[email protected]
202-994-6460