Abstract
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned decades of precedent regarding the federal right to an abortion for people who can carry pregnancies. This case has substantial significance for the education field, directly affecting school- and college-age marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. In this essay, I argue that Dobbs and subsequent policies have created a significant need for educational research to inform courts, public policy, and practice to improve social and educational structural support for marginalized students who can carry pregnancies in a post-Dobbs era. This need is because Dobbs and subsequent policies have significantly diminished reproductive justice, and reproductive justice is intricately tied to marginalized students’ ability to fully engage in their education. Timely educational research is critical to address the systemic inequities that Dobbs and related policies have exacerbated and reified.
In the past decades, marginalized 1 populations gained legal rights that expanded their ability to engage in educational opportunities (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 1954; Roe v. Wade, 1973; Title IX, 1972). Such gains enabled them to enjoy the benefits of obtaining an education (Cruse et al., 2018). 2 Hostile sociopolitical movements simultaneously curtailed these rights, including through restrictive laws and litigation of progressive policies. An issue in this area that affects marginalized students and came into sharp focus in 2022 is reproductive justice. Reproductive justice refers to the ability to make choices about one’s own body, including whether to bear or not bear children, and to raise children in sustainable communities. 3 More specifically, in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion.
In this essay, I argue that Dobbs and subsequent policies have created a significant need for educational research to inform courts, public policy, and practice to improve social and educational structural support for marginalized students who can carry pregnancies in a post-Dobbs era. This need is because Dobbs and subsequent policies have significantly diminished reproductive justice, and reproductive justice is intricately tied to marginalized students’ ability to fully engage in their education. I begin by briefly describing the context pre-Dobbs. Then, the following sections discuss the evolving legal and policy context post-Dobbs and the relationship between reproductive justice and educational engagement. The essay concludes by discussing how educational research can begin to inform courts, public policy, and practice.
Context Pre-Dobbs
In 1973, the Supreme Court found that people had a constitutional right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973). Thereafter, people elected politicians who supported restrictions on abortion and, more broadly, on reproductive autonomy (Beckman, 2016). State policymakers passed laws impeding access to abortions, such as excessive regulation of providers, waiting periods, restricted insurance coverage, and parental consent for minors. State legislatures kept or passed “trigger” laws that would ban abortion, if Roe were overturned (Mayer et al., 2023). Federal policy, such as the Affordable Care Act, also allowed states to pass restrictions, including the ability to limit insurance coverage for abortions (Boonstra & Nash, 2014). In education, state policymakers restricted sex education (e.g., Basch, 2011). These restrictions were most prevalent in the Southern and Midwestern regions and disproportionately affected low-income people of color (Beckman, 2016).
Roe continued to serve as a federal floor preventing further restrictions. But on June 24, 2022, a conservative Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs, ruling that there is no federal right to an abortion under the due-process clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (Cohen et al., 2022; Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 2022). The Court found that Mississippi acted rationally in prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Dobbs enabled states to adopt additional restrictions.
Evolving Legal and Policy Context Post-Dobbs
The shifting legal and policy context post-Dobbs has further limited reproductive justice (e.g., GenBioPro v. Sorsaia, 2023). Policymakers have largely concentrated their efforts on regulating abortion. Thirteen states’ “trigger” laws that banned or severely restricted access to abortion automatically went into effect after Dobbs (Dube et al., 2022), as did Georgia’s 6-week ban (SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Georgia, 2022).
“Trigger” laws may be antiquated, at odds with other laws passed after Roe, confusing in practice, and severely restrictive (Minnick et al., 2022). For example, an Oklahoma law enacted in May 2022 declares that life begins at fertilization, and a Texas law empowers third parties to bring civil suits and collect damages against persons who perform, aid, or abet abortions (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2023a; Editors, 2022). Some state courts have limited the impact of “trigger” laws. As of May 2023, courts in North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming had halted the implementation of their states’ “trigger” laws (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2023a).
By September 2022, 14 states had also adopted restrictive laws in response to Dobbs (e.g., restricting the type of providers who perform abortions and prohibiting telehealth services to administer them; Dube et al., 2022; Minnick et al., 2022). Indiana became the first state to adopt a total ban on abortion, with narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergencies (McCammon, 2022). However, two judges blocked the law from taking effect—in part because it would violate the religious freedom of non-Christian women (Reuters, 2022). About half of the states are expected to ban abortion or add other gestational limits to abortion access (New York Times, 2023). To counteract state restrictions, reproductive justice advocates have filed 36 cases challenging abortion bans in 22 states (Brennan Center for Justice, 2023). Twenty-three of the cases remained unresolved before the courts as of September 2023.
A surge of restrictive education state laws has coincided with reproductive rights restrictions; together, they could have a cumulative restrictive effect on reproductive justice. These laws target K–12 curricula, prohibiting or restricting discussions of gender, gender identity, and sexuality (Lewis et al., 2023). The laws are also ambiguous in their implementation and build on an already disparate policy landscape, where although 38 states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education and/or HIV education, only 17 require that the education be medically accurate, and 29 require that abstinence be stressed (Guttmacher Institute, 2023). Other laws targeting youth include legislation limiting access to gender-affirming treatment (Conron et al., 2022).
In contrast, some states have expanded reproductive care (e.g., expanding the type of providers who can provide abortions and creating a cause of action for out-of-state judgments related to legal abortion care services provided or received in their states; New York Times, 2023). At the federal level, the Biden administration has directed federal agencies to protect reproductive rights under current laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act and civil rights laws that protect against disability and sex discrimination (Minnick et al., 2022; Office for Civil Rights, 2022). Despite these state and federal efforts, access to reproductive care has become increasingly restricted (New York Times, 2023). In short, Dobbs and related subsequent policies have significantly diminished reproductive justice.
Reproductive Justice and Educational Engagement
Researchers have found general trends that tie reproductive justice to students’ ability to fully engage in their education. Critical scholars have argued that marginalized students who can carry pregnancies are unable to fully engage in their education because social policies and educational structures fail to support them pre- and postpartum (e.g., pushing pregnant students out of school; Pillow, 2004). I discuss these trends in more detail below.
Researchers have noted the general importance and benefits of bodily autonomy for school- and college-age students. For instance, access to quality reproductive care, such as contraceptives, lowers the rates of sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies (Beckman, 2016). Moreover, access to abortion is a reproductive right that has particularly benefited people of color (Bernstein & Jones, 2019; Jones, 2021). Bernstein and Jones (2019, p. 19) found that “[a]bortion legalization led to significant increases in high school graduation, college entrance, and labor force participation—among Black women.” Schools also play an important role in promoting bodily autonomy. Sex education in K–12 offers an opportunity for students to learn more about their reproductive systems and healthy relationships (Basch, 2011).
Conversely, research has found that systemic social forces, including poverty, racism, gendered expectations, classism, and sexual violence, negatively affect a birthing person’s ability to thrive pre- and postpartum (Erdmans & Black, 2015). Poverty is associated with lower rates of access to reproductive care and sex education as well as with higher rates of unintended pregnancies, including in teen years (Basch, 2011; Borchelt, 2018; Finer & Zolna, 2016). In turn, unintended pregnancies are associated with negative health and socioeconomic outcomes for the birthing person and their children (e.g., poverty, mental health issues, childbirth complications; Institute of Medicine Committee on Unintended Pregnancy et al., 1995; Logan et al., 2007), given the lack of structural support for child-rearing parents.
The states most often faced with these systemic issues, such as high poverty rates, are the states with the most restrictive policies and practices (Badger et al., 2022; Treisman, 2022). Sex education in schools in these states may be nonexistent or severely limited (Guttmacher Institute, 2023). Access to affordable healthcare, including access to care providers, contraceptives, abortions, and quality care while pregnant, is limited (Badger et al., 2022; Treisman, 2022). Postpartum support is also limited. For instance, limited options for affordable childcare affect a parent’s ability to engage in educational opportunities and participate in the workforce. Unfortunately, common deficit framing of parenting students further shapes social policies in ways that withhold support from parents (e.g., Kelly, 2000; Lesko, 1995, 2001).
These systemic issues are acutely racialized. People of color who can carry pregnancies are more likely to live in poverty and, therefore, are less likely to have access to quality reproductive care and comprehensive sex education (Basch, 2011; Bernstein & Jones, 2019; Donovan, 2017), limiting their ability to have or not have children on their own terms and to raise children in supportive communities. They also experience higher rates of unintended pregnancies (Finer & Zolna, 2016) and childbirth complications (e.g., deaths) attributed to structural racism as well as lack of access to quality reproductive care and structural support postpartum (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2023b; Lothian, 2019; Taylor, 2020; Vedam et al., 2019).
More specific to their educational trajectories postpartum, parenting students in K–12 experience challenges towards degree completion, given the lack of postpartum support in and out of schools. Basch (2011) found that compared to the education of women who delayed childbearing until the age of 30, teen mothers’ education was shortened by an average of 2 years, and they were 10% to 12% less likely to complete high school and had 14% to 19% lower odds of attending college. Researchers have explained that these types of disparities are caused by social forces, including poverty and racism (for example, schools pushing pregnant students out instead of providing leaves and in-school support; Pillow, 2004; see also Sackoff & Yunzal-Butler, 2012). Parenting students in college face a similar lack of structural support that affects their trajectory toward degree completion and carries significant implications postgraduation. For example, only 8% of single mothers complete college within 6 years (Gault et al., 2018). This statistic is consequential because single mothers who attain a college degree are less likely to live in poverty (Cruse et al., 2018). People of color are overrepresented in these statistics. The lack of support for parenting students leaves students without the ability to fully engage in their college education and the labor market postgraduation.
In sum, the lack of structural support that marginalized people who can carry pregnancies receive pre- and postpartum inhibits their educational engagement and has negative consequences for educational outcomes (Sackoff & Yunzal-Butler, 2012). Because reproductive justice is intricately tied to marginalized students’ ability to fully engage in their education, Dobbs and the subsequent evolving legal and policy context create a significant need for educational research.
The Importance of Educational Research Engagement With Courts, Public Policy, and Practice
Given the importance of the issues detailed above, it is imperative that educational researchers begin to inform courts, public policy, and practice to support marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. In this concluding section, I provide concrete, non-exhaustive ways in which educational researchers can inform courts, public policy, and practice.
Courts
People have begun to legally challenge state restrictions on reproductive justice issues, including abortion bans, access to reproductive healthcare, and classroom discussions about bodily autonomy (for a list of ongoing court cases, see Brennan Center for Justice [2023]). Educational researchers can inform the courts’ understanding of how such restrictions have deleterious effects on marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. Ways to inform courts include (a) participating as expert witnesses and (b) disseminating research in a manner that makes it more likely to be used by courts in their opinions, litigators in their legal briefs, and amici, or friends of the court, in their amicus briefs (legal briefs submitted by friends of the court to give courts a greater understanding of the social implications of their rulings). The engagement of educational researchers can inform the outcomes in these cases and thereby lead to less marginalization of marginalized students who can carry pregnancies.
At its core, informing the work of courts in this area is about fostering cross-disciplinary engagement that bridges educational research with the reproductive justice legal issues before courts. To serve as expert witnesses, educational researchers can draw visibility to their expertise by, for example, maintaining an online presence that highlights their background, joining expert witness databases, and building relationships with attorney bar associations that connect attorneys with experts. Regarding the use of educational research by judges, litigators, and amici, research has shown that these legal stakeholders are more likely to use research sources that employ colloquial, accessible language, are short in length, and are open access (Garces et al., 2018). Thus, translating educational research to shorter pieces, such as op-eds, policy briefs, and news stories, can increase the use of educational research in reproductive justice cases. Organizations such as the Op-Ed Project and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Institute for Leadership, Equity, and Justice offer workshops and guidance on how to translate research into such shorter pieces. Additionally, (co-)authoring pieces in law journals published in legal research databases is an important avenue to disseminate educational research that can shape legal cases (for a list of law journals, see Washington and Lee University School of Law, n.d.).
The use of educational research evidence in the legal system is not unprecedented (Brief of 1,241 Social Scientists and Scholars, 2023; Nguyen et al., 2021). Brown v. Board of Education (1954) relied on psychological research to understand the harmful impacts of school segregation. Moreover, the courts use research in their judicial decision-making (Garces et al., 2018; Muñiz & Hutcherson, 2022), and amicus briefs inform courts on relevant social contexts (Horn et al., 2018; Lewis & Bray, 2019; Lewis & Eckes, 2020; Marin et al., 2018; Muñiz et al., 2022, 2023).
Public Policy
Educational researchers can also inform the development of state and federal public policies that implicate marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. For example, research on sex, sexuality, and gender-based discrimination can inform the creation of state laws that regulate sex education and discussions of gender, gender identity, and sexuality in K–12 curricula. Similarly, broader educational research regarding structural support for parenting students can inform state legislative priorities by, for instance, emphasizing the importance of quality reproductive care and childcare. At the federal level, legislators can adopt a law to codify Roe, and the U.S. Department of Education can promulgate Title IX regulations and guidance instructing institutions on how to best support parenting students (e.g., parental leaves, flexible attendance policies, childcare support). Here, too, educational research can document the importance of comprehensive reproductive care and institutional support post-Dobbs. Similar to the use of research by courts, the use of research in education policymaking is well established, although there are limitations (Cooper et al., 2009; Levin, 2013; Lubienski et al., 2014; Pasachoff, 2017; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Wiseman, 2010), such as time constraints, unavailability of data, politics (Natow, 2020), and overreliance on research that privileges individualism over the collective good (Jabbar & Menashy, 2022).
Sharing relevant research in accessible manners and building relationships with policymakers are cornerstones to facilitating the use of research in policymaking in a fast-paced environment (Oliver et al., 2014). Such organizations as the National Education Policy Center and Research-to-Policy Collaborative serve a key role as knowledge brokers, publishing the work of educational researchers in accessible formats (e.g., policy briefs, policy fact sheets, and op-eds) and connecting educational researchers with policymakers by directly sharing the research with federal and state legislative offices and coordinating meetings with legislators.
Practice
Lastly, educational researchers can inform practices to support marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. Researchers can study how the evolving state policy contexts are shaping these students’ educational trajectories and what practices may support them. For example, researchers can study whether marginalized students in restrictive states see themselves affected in their ability to remain in school in K–12 and enroll in college (Lundberg & Startz, 2022). Emerging evidence has suggested that students are choosing colleges in part based on whether the institutions are located in restrictive states (Anderson, 2022). Relatedly, researchers can examine what policy implementation practices are effective in supporting marginalized students’ success or, conversely, use a critical lens (e.g., Ray, 2019) to document and examine ineffective practices that may further marginalize them. Moreover, childcare, mental health, and food and housing support for parenting students are often lacking (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2020; Madden, 2018; Manze et al., 2023; Willen, 2020), and these needs are likely to be exacerbated post-Dobbs (Cardoza, 2022; Sanchez, 2022). Researchers can inform the practices of college support centers and identify programming/staffing needs. Research-practice partnerships can be key to forge collaborations between research and practice (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farley-Ripple et al., 2018; Farrell et al., 2022). The partnerships can encompass engaging practitioners in research projects and sharing findings and recommendations with them. Funding sources, such as the Spencer Foundation and William T. Grant Foundation, can support such collaborations.
In sum, Dobbs and subsequent policies have significantly diminished students’ reproductive justice nationwide. Reproductive justice is crucial to the educational success of marginalized students who can carry pregnancies. Timely educational research is critical to address the systemic inequities that Dobbs and related policies have exacerbated and reified.
