Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

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.

Keywords

descriptive analysis equity law/legal policy

In the past decades, marginalized¹ 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.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Raquel Muñiz

Notes

Author

RAQUEL MUÑIZ, JD, PhD, is an assistant professor at Boston College and an assistant professor (courtesy) at the School of Law, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; munizcas@bc.edu. Her equity-focused research studies the impact of the law on marginalized students and research engagement with law, policy, and practice.

References

Anderson

(2022, August 16). College-shopping students have a new query: Is abortion legal there? Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/22/state-abortion-access-college-decision/

Badger

Sanger-Katz

Cain Miller

(2022, July 28). States with abortion bans are among least supportive for mothers and children. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/upshot/abortion-bans-states-social-services.html

Basch

C. E.

(2011). Teen pregnancy and the achievement gap among urban minority youth. Journal of School Health, 81, 614–618.

Beckman

L. J.

(2016). Abortion in the United States: The continuing controversy. Feminism and Psychology, 27(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353516685345

Bernstein

Jones

K. M.

(2019). The economic effects of abortion access: A review of the evidence. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep34541.11

Boonstra

H. D.

Nash

(2014). A surge of state abortion restrictions put providers—and the women they serve—in the crosshairs. Guttmacher Policy Review. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2014/03/surge-state-abortion-restrictions-puts-providers-and-women-they-serve-crosshairs

Borchelt

(2018). The impact poverty has on women’s health. Human Rights, 43(3), 70–73.

Brennan Center for Justice. (2023). State court abortion litigation tracker: Numerous challenges to abortion bans have been filed in state courts since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-court-abortion-litigation-tracker

Brief of 1,241 Social Scientists and Scholars on College Access, Asian American Studies, and Race as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181. (2023).

10.

Brown v. Board of Education , 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

11.

Cardoza

(2022, July 24). If more students become pregnant post-Roe, are we prepared to support them? Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/if-more-students-become-pregnant-post-roe-are-we-prepared-to-support-them/

12.

Causadias

J. M.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2018). Reframing marginalization and youth development: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 73(6), 707–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000336

13.

Center for Reproductive Rights. (2023a). After Roe fell: Abortion laws by state. https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/

14.

Center for Reproductive Rights. (2023b). The constitutional right to reproductive autonomy: Realizing the promise of the 14th Amendment. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Final-14th-Amendment-Report-7.26.22.pdf

15.

Cheng

(1999). Marginalized masculinities and hegemonic masculinity: An introduction. Journal of Men’s Studies, 7(3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0703.295

16.

Coburn

C. E.

Penuel

W. R.

(2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.

17.

Cohen

D. S.

Donley

Rebouché

(2022). Rethinking strategy after Dobbs. Stanford Law Review Online, 75, 1–14.

18.

Conron

K. J.

O’Neill

K. K.

Vasquez

L. A.

Mallory

(2022). Prohibiting gender-affirming medical care for youth. UCLA School of Law Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trans-Youth-Health-Bans-Mar-2022.pdf

19.

Cooper

Levin

Campbell

(2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9107-0

20.

Cruse

L. R.

Milli

Gault

(2018, July). Single mothers with college degrees much less likely to live in poverty [Quick Figures #Q072]. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612451.pdf

21.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , 142 S. Ct. 2228. (2022).

22.

Donovan

M. K.

(2017). In real life: Federal restrictions on abortion coverage and the women they impact. Guttmacher Policy Review, 20. https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/gpr2000116.pdf

23.

Dube

Orlando

Schaeffer-Helmecki

(2022). State abortion laws enacted post-Dobbs decision. Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research. https://cga.ct.gov/2022/rpt/pdf/2022-R-0227.pdf

24.

Editors. (2022). Lawmakers v. the scientific realities of human reproduction. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(4), 367–368.

25.

Erdsman

M. P.

Black

(2015). On becoming a teen mom: Life before pregnancy. University of California Press.

26.

Farley-Ripple

May

Karpyn

Tilley

McDonough

(2018). Rethinking connections between research and practice in education: A conceptual framework. Educational Researcher, 47(4), 235–245.

27.

Farrell

C. C.

Penuel

W. R.

Allen

Anderson

E. R.

Bohannon

A. X.

Coburn

C. E.

Brown

S. L.

(2022). Learning at the boundaries of research and practice: A framework for understanding research-practice partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 197–208.

28.

Finer

L. B.

Zolna

M. R.

(2016). Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. New England Journal of Medicine, 374, 843–852.

29.

Garces

L. M.

Marin

Horn

C. L.

(2018). The U.S. Supreme Court’s use of non-legal sources and amicus curiae briefs in Fisher v. University of Texas. Journal of College and University Law, 43(2), 167–194.

30.

Gault

Milli

Cruse

L. R.

(2018). Investing in single mothers’ higher education: Costs and benefits to individuals, families, and society. Student Parent Success Initiative, Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED612662.pdf

31.

GenBioPro v. Sorsaia , 3:23-cv-00058, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76271 (S.D.W. Va. May 2, 2023).

32.

Goldrick-Rab

Welton

C. R.

Coca

(2020). Parenting while in college: Basic needs insecurity among students with children. Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice. https://www.lumin afoundation.org/wp–content/uploads/2020/06/parenting-while-in-college.pdf

33.

Guttmacher Institute. (2023). Sex and HIV education. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education

34.

Horn

C. L.

Marin

Garces

L. M.

Miksch

Yun

(2018). Shaping educational policy through the courts: The use of social science research in amicus briefs. Educational Policy, 34(3), 449–476.

35.

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Brown

S. S.

Eisenberg

(Eds.). (1995). The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. U.S. National Academies Press.

36.

Jabbar

Menashy

(2022). Economic imperialism in education research: A conceptual review. Educational Researcher, 51(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211066114

37.

Jones

(2021). At a crossroads: The impact of abortion access on future economic outcomes [Working paper]. American University. https://ideas.repec.org/p/amu/wpaper/2021-02.html

38.

Kelly

D. M.

(2000). Pregnant with meaning: Teen mothers and the politics of inclusive schooling. Peter Lang Publishing.

39.

Labaree

D. F.

(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034001039

40.

Levin

(2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3001

41.

Lesko

(1995). The “leaky needs” of school-aged mothers: An examination of U.S. programs and policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 25, 177–205. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1180186

42.

Lesko

(2001). Act your age! A cultural construction of adolescence. Routledge.

43.

Lewis

M. M.

Bray

(2019). A call for amicus briefs as a means to influence special education policy: Lessons learned from Endrew F. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(3), 131–137.

44.

Lewis

M. M.

Eckes

S. E.

(2020). Storytelling, leadership, and the law: Using amicus briefs to understand the impact of school district policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 46–88.

45.

Lewis

M. M.

Muñiz

Miller

(2023). The politicization of education law and the implications for re-envisioning the law school curriculum for racial justice. Rutgers Race and the Law Review. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4238001

46.

Logan

Holcombe

Manlove

Ryan

(2007). The consequences of unintended childbearing. Washington, DC: Child trends and National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 28, 142–151.

47.

Lothian

J. A.

(2019). The continued mistreatment of women during pregnancy and childbirth. Journal of Perinatal Education, 28(4), 183–185. https://doi.org/10.1891/1058-1243.28.4.183

48.

Lubienski

Scott

DeBray

(2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515329

49.

Lundberg

S. J.

Startz

(2022). The end of Roe creates new challenges in higher education. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2022/08/09/the-end-of-roe-creates-new-challenges-in-higher-education/

50.

Madden

(2018). Illuminating low-income pregnant and parenting student mothers’ experiences with community college. Equity and Excellence in Education, 51(3–4), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2019.1571463

51.

Manze

Watnick

Freudenberg

(2023). How do childcare and pregnancy affect the academic success of college students? Journal of American College Health, 71(2), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1895174

52.

Marin

Horn

C. L.

Miksch

Garces

L. M.

Yun

(2018). Use of extra-legal sources in amicus briefs submitted in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(38), 1–29.

53.

Mayer

M. K.

Morris

J. C.

Aistrup

J. A.

Anderson

R. B.

Kenter

R. C.

(2023). Dobbs, American federalism, and state abortion policymaking: Restrictive policies alongside expansion of reproductive rights. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 53(3), 378–404. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjad012

54.

McCammon

(2022). The first abortion ban passed after Roe takes effect Thursday in Indiana. NPR. https://www.npr.org/ 2022/09/14/1122835073/indiana-abortion-ban-thursday-roe-dobbs

55.

Minnick

Shah

Wendzi

Peters

(2022). Disorder in the post-Roe world? . . . . “It is so ordered” by the Dobbs Court. Health Law Weekly. https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/content-library/health-law-weekly/article/50b326b2-e6ee-45e1-89e3-cab572f818c6/disorder-in-the-post-roe-world-it-is-so-ordered-by

56.

Muñiz

Hutcherson

(2022). The power of research evidence use in times of crisis: How the Klassen v. Indiana University court used extra-legal sources to ground litigants in social realities. West’s Education Law Reporter, 435.

57.

Muñiz

Lewis

M. M.

Cavanagh

Woolsey

(2022). The social context of the law: A critical analysis of reliance interests in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. Southern California Law Review, 95(44), 101–195.

58.

Muñiz

Lewis

M. M.

Tumer

Kane

(2023). The story of DACA as told by Friends of the Court: The role of interest convergence, color-evasiveness, and exceptionality in policy discourse. American Journal of Education, 129(3). https://doi.org/10.1086/724305

59.

Natow

R. S.

(2020). Research utilization in higher education rulemaking: A multi-case study of research prevalence, sources, and barriers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(95), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5048

60.

New York Times . (2023, May 5). Tracking the states where abortion is now banned. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade.html

61.

Nguyen

M. H.

Lee

D. H.

Garces

L. M.

Poon

O. A.

Wong

(2021). Mobilizing social science research to inform judicial decision-making: SFFA v. Harvard. Asian American Law Journal.

62.

Office for Civil Rights (OCR). (2022, July 13). Guidance to nation’s retail pharmacies: Obligations under federal civil rights laws to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive health care services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pharmacies-guidance.pdf

63.

Oliver

Innvar

Lorenc

Woodman

Thomas

(2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services, 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

64.

Pasachoff

(2017). Two cheers for evidence: Law, research, and values in education policymaking and beyond. Columbia Law Review, 117(7), 1933–1972. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.jour nals/clr117&i=2018

65.

Pillow

(2004). Unfit subjects: Educational policy and the teen mother. Routledge.

66.

Ray

(2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.

67.

Reuters. (2022). Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds. https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-indi ana-abortion-ban-religious-freedom-grounds-2022-12-03/

68.

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

69.

Sackoff

J. E.

Yunzal-Butler

(2012). Understanding causal pathways: Response to “teen pregnancy and the achievement gap among urban minority youth.” Journal of School Health, 82(7), 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746–1561.2012.00701.x

70.

Sanchez

(2022, June 22). How are college campuses preparing for a post-Roe world? Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/how-are-college-campuses-preparing-for-a-post-roe-world/

71.

Scott

Jabbar

(2014). The hJ.ub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327

72.

Sistersong. (n.d.). Visioning new futures for reproductive justice. https://www.sistersong.net/visioningnewfuturesforrj

73.

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Georgia , 40 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. 2022).

74.

Taylor

J. K.

(2020). Structural racism and maternal health among Black women. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 48(3), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110520958875

75.

Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. (1972). https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix-education-amendments-1972

76.

Treisman

(2022, August 18). States with the toughest abortion laws have the weakest maternal supports, data shows. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes

77.

Vedam

Stoll

Taiwo

T. K.

Rubashkin

Cheyney

Strauss

McLemore

Cadena

Nethery

Rushton

Schummers

GVtM-US Steering Council. (2019). The Giving Voice to Mothers study: Inequity and mistreatment during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States. Reproductive Health, 16(77). https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-019-0729-2

78.

Washington and Lee University School of Law. (n.d.). W&L Law Journal rankings. https://managementtools4.wlu.edu/LawJournals/Default.aspx

79.

Willen

(2020, February 20). How parents of young kids make it through college. Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/how-parents-of-young-kids-make-it-through-college/

80.

Wiseman

A. W.

(2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09350472

The Need for Educational Research Engagement With Courts,Public Policy,and Practice in a Post- Dobbs Era

Abstract

Keywords

Context Pre-Dobbs

Evolving Legal and Policy Context Post-Dobbs

Reproductive Justice and Educational Engagement

The Importance of Educational Research Engagement With Courts, Public Policy, and Practice

Courts

Public Policy

Practice

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Notes

Author

References