UCLA Journal of Gender and Law

This Note makes the case for federal abortion protections by illustrating the heightened danger of intimate partner violence during pregnancy and highlighting the ways that abusers may use the law and legal systems as tools of abuse against their pregnant partners. To do so, this Note explains how the United States Supreme Court recognized the heightened risk of intimate partner violence during pregnancy in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and used concern for the safety of survivors of intimate partner violence to strike down abortion restrictions. It next discusses how Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization toppled critical protections for survivors of intimate partner violence when it ended federal constitutional protections for abortion. The Note explains the ways that bounty-style laws like Texas’s S.B. 8, wrongful death suits, spousal consent laws, and pregnancy criminalization laws can be used to further trap survivors in abusive relationships in a post-Dobbs era. Finally, it concludes that federal abortion protections are critical to keeping survivors of intimate partner violence safe and advocates that the Women’s Health Protection Act be passed with viability ban language removed, for prohibiting notice and consent requirements, and for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

Starting a family and becoming a parent are major milestones for many people regardless of their sexual orientation. While some people choose not to have children, others face unique challenges in their journey to becoming parents. The legalization of same-sex marriage opened the door for parenthood to many same-sex couples who wished to pursue parenthood; however, that journey would not be easy. The long history of medical institutions pathologizing homosexuality and the legal system’s criminalization of same-sex intimacy created a standard of heterosexuality that entrenched itself in the fabric of American society. This standard would eventually be used against same-sex couples in the healthcare system where they would attempt to access assisted reproductive technology. This Article explains how the centuries-long tradition of associating parenthood with heterosexuality had managed to seep into health insurance policies that can serve as gatekeepers—providing different-sex couples with an ability to become parents while withholding the same opportunity from same-sex couples. After Bostock v. Clayton County supplied the necessary ammunition and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promulgated recent regulatory changes, gay people from multiple states brought lawsuits alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation in their health insurance policies. The Article explores an ongoing slew of court battles and synthesizes legal strategy lessons. The Article concludes with future directions for improving the healthcare system and supporting gay parenthood.

Childcare, and how to pay for it, is one of the central issues facing families and society today. The challenges of childcare adversely impact women who bear the primary responsibility for such care, both paid and unpaid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women were more likely to bear the professional and personal impact of shuttered preschools and the absence of daycare centers. Even wealthy families faced these same challenges, along with the common concerns of protecting their health and those of vulnerable family members. Post-COVID, all households have seen the rising costs of childcare, as licensed care centers have permanently closed and informal care is in short supply. The unaffordability and unavailability of childcare presents a particular challenge for those in the middle and low-income classes as they also struggle with the high costs of food, healthcare, housing, and other daily expenditures. This Article argues that tax laws should be augmented to elevate the value of care labor while offering greater support for both parents working in the market and those in the home. The tools of tax policy offer powerful potential to open remedial paths for the greater public good. A refundable child dependent care credit, the reinstatement of the per child credit for children under 6 years old, the expansion of the earned income credit for the care provider, a more generous employer family leave credit, as well as new provisions supporting the working parent, the low-income taxpayer, and unpaid caregiver, represent practical initial steps. In addition, tax revenues should be raised in commensurate measure to support this higher valuation of care activities. Attention to this childcare issue will represent an investment in our children, will help assure them equality of opportunity, and provide them the education necessary to make valuable contributions to the nation. Promoting choice through the tax code will help prepare us for a future pandemic.