About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


112 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1417 (2017-2018)
Challenging the Rhetorical Gag and Trap: Reproductive Capacities, Rights, and the Helms Amendment

handle is hein.journals/illlr112 and id is 1473 raw text is: Copyright 2018 by Michele Goodwin Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 112, No. 6 CHALLENGING THE RHETORICAL GAG AND TRAP: REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITIES, RIGHTS, AND THE HELMS AMENDMENT Michele Goodwin ABSTRACT-This Essay argues that the battle over women's autonomy, especially their reproductive healthcare and decision-making, has always been about much more than simply women's health and safety. Rather, upholding patriarchy and dominion over women's reproduction historically served political purposes and entrenched social and cultural norms that framed women's capacities almost exclusively as service to a husband, mothering, reproducing, and sexual chattel. In turn, such social norms- often enforced by statutes and legal opinions-took root in rhetoric rather than the realities of women's humanity, experiences, capacities, autonomy, and lived lives. As such, law created legal fictions about women and their supposed lack of intellectual and social capacities. Law trapped women to the destinies courts and legislatures aspired for them and continues to do so. This Essay turns to the less engaged international sphere and the copious Congressional Record to unpack how the Helms Amendment and later, the Mexico City Policy (or Global Gag Rule), emerged from this type of lawmaking. This Essay shows how these harmful dictates on women's lives and bodies in developing nations result in a deadly rise of illegal abortions, criminal punishments, stigmatization, and sadly, deaths. AUTHOR-Chancellor's Professor and Director of the Center for Biotechnology & Global Health Policy, University of California, Irvine. I am grateful for the research assistance of Mariah Lindsay and Julia Jones. Special appreciation to the Northwestern University Law Review for its attention to law, society, and empirical study in law, particularly on the thirtieth anniversary of McCleskey v. Kemp and, for purposes of this Essay and research, the forty-fifth anniversary of the Helms Amendment. 1417