Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T17:31:31.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Respecting Intent and Dispelling Stereotypes by Reducing Unintended Pregnancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Dawn Johnsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In “Expectant Fathers, Abortion, and Embryos,” Dara Purvis considers the interests of “expectational fathers,” as she calls them, in the related contexts of abortion and the disposition of pre-embryos in assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Her thought-provoking essay contributes to a subject — men and reproductive decision-making — that is too little studied. I embrace her emphasis on respect for both men’s equal role in parenting and women’s right to decide whether to terminate or continue pregnancy. In this Comment, I examine her central concern that abortion discourse promotes harmful gender stereotypes by minimizing expectational fathers’ interests. I suggest that Purvis’s own analytic focus on intent, properly applied and extended, actually ameliorates her concern and points instead to a more direct, unapologetic acknowledgement of men’s (and women’s) desires to avoid parenthood in particular circumstances and at particular times in their lives.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 341 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Purvis, D. E., “Expectant Fathers, Abortion, and Embryos,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2015): 330–340.Google Scholar
Purvis, D. E., “Intended Parents and the Problem of Perspective,” Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 24, no. 2 (2012): 210–53.Google Scholar
See Purvis, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Although estimates are from the perspective of women and hard data is unavailable, by one estimate 95 percent of abortions follow an unintended pregnancy. Finer, L. B. Zolna, M. R., “Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006,” Contraception 84, no. 5 (2011): 478–85, at 479 n.4. See also Finer, L. B. Frohwirth, L. F. Dauphinee, L. A. Singh, S. Moore, A. M., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37, no. 3 (2005): 110–18.Google Scholar
For example, the Supreme Court split five to four to uphold a law that imposed different citizenship rules for children born abroad depending upon whether the child's mother or father was a U.S. citizen. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).Google Scholar
Daniels, K. Mosher, W. D. Jones, J., “Contraceptive Methods Women Have Ever Used: United States, 1982–2010,” National Health Statistics Report, No. 62 (February 14, 2013): At 8.Google Scholar
Martinez, G. Daniels, K. Chandra, A., “Fertility of Men and Women Aged 15–44 Years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010,” National Health Statistics Report, No. 51 (April 12, 2012): At 7.Google Scholar
Jones, R. K. Kavanaugh, M. L., “Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortions,” Obstetrics & Gynecology 117, no. 6 (2011): 1358–66, at 1366.Google Scholar
Jones, R. K. Finer, L. B. Singh, S., “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008,” Guttmacher Institute (May 2010): At 8.Google Scholar
See Finer, et al., supra note 6, at 112.Google Scholar
Finer, L. B. Zolna, M. R., “Shifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008,” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. S1 (2014): S43–S48, at S44 (counting among intended pregnancies those where women felt indifferent).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 70–71 (1976).Google Scholar
505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Id. at 894. See also Jones, R. K. Moore, A. M. Frohwirth, L. F., “Perceptions of Male Knowledge and Support among U.S. Women Obtaining Abortions,” Women's Health Issues 21, no. 2 (2011): 117–23.Google Scholar
Casey, 505 U.S. at 892–93.Google Scholar
Id. at 892.Google Scholar
Nash, E. Gold, R. B. Rowan, A. Rathbun, G. Vierboom, Y., “Laws Affecting Reproductive Health and Rights: 2013 State Policy Review,” Guttmacher Institute (January 2014), available at <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2013/statetrends42013.html> (last visited April 14, 2015).Google Scholar
See Elsasser, G., “Court Won’t Hear Father's Abortion Appeal,” Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1988.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Conn v. Conn, 526 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S. 955 (1988); Lewis v. Lewis, No. 11140 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 1988), appeal denied, No. 84149, 1988 Mich. Lexis 1751, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 1988), application for stay denied, 487 U.S. 165 (1988), cert. denied sub nom., Myers v. Lewis, 487 U.S. 165 (1988); Doe v. Smith, 527 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1988), applications for stay denied, 486 U.S. 1308 (1988) (Stevens, J., in chambers).Google Scholar
Singh, S. Sedgh, G. Hussain, R., “Unintended Pregnancy: Worldwide Levels, Trends and Outcomes,” Studies in Family Planning 41, no. 4 (2010): 241–50, at 244.Google Scholar
See Jones, et al., supra note 13, at 5–9.Google Scholar
Gold, R. B. Sonfield, A. Richards, C. L. Frost, J. J., “Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System,” Guttmacher Institute (2009): At 6.Google Scholar
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).Google Scholar
Brief for the Guttmacher Institute and Professor Sara Rosenbaum as Amici Curiae Supporting the Government, at 4, Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)Google Scholar
Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct., at 2800 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).Google Scholar