JLI’s Editor-in-Chief, Navin Ramalingam, and Executive Editor, Abby Rauls, sit down with Prof. June Carbone, family law professor and faculty advisor for the journal, for the first in a series of video interviews for Inequality Inquiry with the faculty, practitioners and other legal experts about a variety of issues affecting law and inequality during COVID-19. They discuss the gendered dynamics surrounding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics include the effect of quarantine on families and couples who are having to stay at home together, gender discrepancies in the “essential” workforce, funding of the healthcare system, and possible recourse for those who may be facing higher levels of domestic abuse and violence during these turbulent times.
by Kaiya A. Lyons
Since its decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability and without undue burden. However, the ability of a woman to exercise that right today is as intimately connected to her economic privilege and geographic location as it was in the days preceding that landmark ruling. Under the guise of protecting women from the “harms inherent in abortion,” major conservative gains in the 2010 midterm elections resulted in hundreds of anti-abortion measures flooding a majority of state legislatures. In the aftermath of that year’s midterm elections, the bulk of state legislatures passed an unprecedented number of harsh new restrictions on when, how, and even whether women may access abortion services. Because these laws are also substantially more obstructive than their predecessors, for low-income women, the economic impact of these restrictive regulations is extremely harmful.