The States of Inequality: Methods for Mapping Legal Pluralism in Reproductive Autonomy

Amber B. Vayo
{"title":"The States of Inequality: Methods for Mapping Legal Pluralism in Reproductive Autonomy","authors":"Amber B. Vayo","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2022.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The field of public health law has been honing important transdisciplinary methods such as legal epidemiology and legal mapping. These methods can and should be integrated into socio-legal studies because they provide us with a way to capture the legal elements of interlocking power structures, offer ways to meaningfully compare and predict what access to rights will look like across jurisdictions, and capture a new way to study legal pluralism across and within jurisdictions. To illustrate the benefit of such methods for studying legal pluralism, this article offers the State Reproductive Autonomy Index, which compares all fifty states on seventy-five variables. Modeled on legal epidemiology’s survey of multiple types of law, including laws that can be classified as infrastructural (laying the institutional or policy parameters), interventionist (specifically targeted to produce a result), and incidental (distally related, not intentionally), this method integrates the work of reproductive justice scholars with the work on legal pluralism to illustrate the vast inequalities in access to reproductive autonomy across the United States. The State Reproductive Autonomy Index also shows why reproductive justice, rather than reproductive rights discourse, is a more accurate frame for understanding laws relating to reproduction and bodily autonomy.","PeriodicalId":168157,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Social Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2022.61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The field of public health law has been honing important transdisciplinary methods such as legal epidemiology and legal mapping. These methods can and should be integrated into socio-legal studies because they provide us with a way to capture the legal elements of interlocking power structures, offer ways to meaningfully compare and predict what access to rights will look like across jurisdictions, and capture a new way to study legal pluralism across and within jurisdictions. To illustrate the benefit of such methods for studying legal pluralism, this article offers the State Reproductive Autonomy Index, which compares all fifty states on seventy-five variables. Modeled on legal epidemiology’s survey of multiple types of law, including laws that can be classified as infrastructural (laying the institutional or policy parameters), interventionist (specifically targeted to produce a result), and incidental (distally related, not intentionally), this method integrates the work of reproductive justice scholars with the work on legal pluralism to illustrate the vast inequalities in access to reproductive autonomy across the United States. The State Reproductive Autonomy Index also shows why reproductive justice, rather than reproductive rights discourse, is a more accurate frame for understanding laws relating to reproduction and bodily autonomy.
不平等的状态:生育自治中法律多元主义的映射方法
公共卫生法领域一直在磨练重要的跨学科方法,如法律流行病学和法律制图。这些方法可以而且应该被纳入社会法律研究,因为它们为我们提供了一种方法来捕捉连锁权力结构的法律要素,提供了一种方法来有意义地比较和预测不同司法管辖区的权利获取情况,并为研究司法管辖区之间和内部的法律多元化提供了一种新方法。为了说明这种研究法律多元主义的方法的好处,本文提供了州生殖自主指数,它比较了所有50个州的75个变量。该方法以法律流行病学对多种类型法律的调查为模型,包括可归类为基础设施(奠定制度或政策参数),干预主义(专门针对产生结果)和附带性(远程相关,非故意)的法律,该方法将生殖正义学者的工作与法律多元化的工作相结合,以说明美国各地在获得生殖自主权方面存在巨大的不平等。国家生殖自主指数还表明,为什么生殖正义,而不是生殖权利话语,是理解与生殖和身体自主有关的法律的更准确的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信