Rickie Solinger's Reproductive Politics: Analysis

In her book Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs To Know, Rickie Solinger outlines the history of anti-abortion sentiment in the U.S. Solinger establishes that while abortion began to be criminalized in the mid 1800’s, it was not until the early 1900’s that abortion had been made fully illegal in the United States (Solinger 2015). The rhetoric advocating for the “protection of women” that Solinger describes is similar to much of the anti-choice rhetoric we see today. Solinger states “Arguments in favor of criminalization included the need to protect women from using poisonous abortifacients and from practitioners without medical credentials” (Solinger: 5). While these may seem like genuine concerns, they were not the main force driving

Solinger writes:

Advocates of criminalization also stressed society’s obligation to halt the declining birthrate among white Americans. And many stressed the need to protect the sanctity of motherhood and the chastity of white women; abortion, after all, supported the separation of sexual intercourse from reproduction. For many physicians and others, all of these concerns where generally more trenchant in the nineteenth century than the issue of fetal life. (Solinger: 5).

To further compound this, Solinger discusses the issue of eugenic laws and the sterilization of individuals who were deemed to be unsuitable for reproduction. These standards applied to women who were either poor, minorities, or women who had a disability (Solinger 2015). Solinger describes the use of “coercion” to get women who fell under these categories to be sterilized (Solinger, 2015). The film “No Mas Bebes” epitomizes Solinger’s statements. The film is a documentary that chronicles the stories of the women involved in the Madrigal v. Quilligan case, in which the women sued L.A. county doctors and

HB2 stated that abortion providers must “meet the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers” and that abortion providers must have “…admitting privileges…at a hospital not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced” (Pruitt and Vanegas 2015; Texas Legislature 2013; Whole Women 's Health v. Hellerstedt 2016). Unlike previous regulatory attempts by the state of Texas, which cited the well-being of women as the motivation for regulation, HB2 clearly stated that “…the state has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children…” (Texas State Legislature 2013). Studies conducted during the time period after the passage of HB2 until the repeal of the portion requiring that centers meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers found that HB2 had created a standard that abortion providers could not meet without undue burden (Pruitt and Vanegas 2015; Fuentes 2016; Gerdts 2016). Instead, many abortion providers closed their doors, leaving some individuals with no local options for abortion providers (Fuentes 2016; Gerdts 2016). In separate studies, Fuentes (2016) and Gerdts (2016) found that when clinics closed due to their inability to prescribe to the requirements of HB2, they left the individuals who would have used those abortion clinics without access to abortion providers. This in turn meant if women decided that they would pursue an abortion in a different