Alicia Kaufmann '27
Staff Editor
On Thursday, November 7, two days after the election, If/When/How and the American Constitution Society (“ACS”) hosted a panel on “Reproductive Justice and the 2024 Election.” The panel featured Professor Anne Coughlin, Professor Naomi Cahn, and Federal Policy Counsel Sanchi Khare from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
From left: Professor Naomi Cahn, Sanchi Khare, Professor Anne Coughlin
Source: UVA, LinkedIn
Khare kicked off the panel with a quick introduction to her work. The Center for Reproductive Rights is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that “uses the power of law to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights around the world.”[1] As Federal Policy Counsel, Khare describes her work as “heavy legal thinking” dedicated to ensuring reproductive rights “legislation [will] withstand judicial review.” Before working for the Center, Khare clerked for the Senate Judiciary Committee and now-Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson when she was at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Professor Coughlin then gave an overview of her experience working on reproductive justice issues. Along with teaching the Feminist Jurisprudence course (available in Spring 2025), she is also the co-director of UVA’s Sound Justice Lab, which highlights “the lives of people that law tends to exclude or marginalize.” She and Professor Cahn are also jointly teaching Reproductive Rights and Justice during the J-term from January 13 to 16. Professor Cahn also expounded on her background in reproductive justice, which began straight out of college when she got a job at the National Abortion Rights Action League checking for bombs in the mailroom. Both professors have devoted their academic careers to researching the intersection of reproductive and feminist issues and the law.
After introductions, the conversation shifted to how these reproductive issues will be “addressed” in the new administration. During the election, seven out of the ten states that had abortion initiatives on the ballot passed them, enshrining abortion rights in their state constitutions. However, it is still unclear which party will win a majority in the House of Representatives. With gains in the Senate and Trump’s presidential victory, Republicans could potentially control all three branches of government. Even if the GOP does not gain control of the House, however, the panelists explained the myriad ways the federal government would be able to restrict access to abortion and reproductive health care.
Addressing a national abortion ban, Khare said that she is not as worried about this as other measures. “The filibuster would prevent a national ban,” Khare reassured. The filibuster is a Senate procedure that allows members to prolong debate on a bill. Sixty members have to vote in favor of “cloture” to end a filibuster. Senate Republicans have not been outspoken about getting rid of the filibuster, and there are two pro-choice Republicans, Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), so Senate Democrats should be able to impede a national ban. Khare, however, is concerned about Republicans using the budget reconciliation process to circumvent the filibuster. Reconciliation bills aim to align spending, revenue, and debt with budget targets and get expedited consideration in the Senate—there is no ability to delay using the filibuster. Senate Republicans may use this strategy to redirect funds away from facilities or jurisdictions that provide abortion care.
The panelists argued that an executive administrative ban is more likely than larger legislative measures. For example, agencies may revive a restrictive interpretation of the Comstock Act to criminalize mailing abortion medication across state lines. States can get around this by manufacturing the pills entirely within the state, but this would require extensive funding. Another tactic may be limiting Title X, or government-funded family planning through the Department of Health & Human Services. Khare says it is extremely likely for Trump to institute a “global gag rule” as soon as he assumes office, or conditioning receipt of Title X funds for foreign NGOs on not counseling or advising on abortion access. Professor Cahn added that a “domestic gag rule” is also possible. Similarly, executive agencies can divert funds to Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) or limit Medicaid funding so providers cannot advise on abortion.
A question from the audience then prompted a discussion on how to have conversations on this topic with people who have opposing viewpoints. Khare expressed that sharing personal stories is important for showing people the negative effects of limiting abortion access. The Center recently released a documentary film, Zurawski v. Texas, which follows litigation between women denied abortions during life-threatening emergencies and the state of Texas. Professor Coughlin noted that the stories highlighted in the film are informative for those who may not recognize the consequences of current abortion bans.
It is important to continue creating spaces like this panel that allow for conversation about reproductive justice and how to combat restrictions over the next four years. While it may seem hopeless, Khare’s, Professor Coughlin’s, and Professor Cahn’s careers underscore how many people are working tirelessly to address these issues.
---
hcr9bm@virginia.edu
[1] https://reproductiverights.org/about-us/.