The Federalist Society law faculty division held its Annual Conference this week, where I was honored to make a brief presentation. The Panel of Presenters included:
• Johnny Rex Buckles, University of Houston Law
Center: "A Rawlsian Critique of the Political Speech Constraints on
Charities"
• Peter Galie, Canisius College: "The Rights
Tradition in America's First Constitutions"
• Scott Gerber, Ohio Northern University School of
Law: 'We Who Differ With Regard to Religion Will Keep the Peace with One
Another': The Intellectual History of European Laws about Religious Toleration
Prior to the Planting of English America"
• Lynne Marie Kohm, Regent University School of
Law: "The Intersectionality of Racism and Bioethics"
• Antony Kolenc, UNT Dallas College of Law: 'No
Help You God': The Intersection of Religious Liberty and the Rule of Evidence
610"
• David Schizer, Columbia Law School: "Nonprofits
as a Complement to Federalism"
More details for
all the events are available here.
Focusing on racism in reproductive health, the intersectionality of racism and bioethics addressed legal racial inequality from a bioethics perspective. The study of the implications of biological or biomedical advances, bioethics generally directs fields of genetic engineering and research. Here I am applying it to reproductive health advances.
Having recently published a chapter called Designer Babies: Are Test Tubes and Microbes Replacing Romance? In Designer Babies and Gene Editing: Are We Ready for This? (Scholars Press 2019), ongoing research shows that genetic engineering has afforded us a full set of instructions for making a human being, and avenues for choosing which human beings advance to birth. Exploring the legal and ethical concerns can guide law and public policy.
Addressing racial disparity at the beginning of life is a critical aspect of working against racial discrimination. While racial concerns in assisted reproductive technology (ART) are extremely challenging to discern, the closest veritable tracking for racism in bioethics appears to be in abortion rather than ART. This is critical as racism is very apparent in the available evidence. Read the Wall Street Journal article by Jason Riley, “Let’s Talk about the Black Abortion Rate,” if you have any doubt. Motivation for this topic came from the work of Tysharah Jones, “Race Selective Abortion Bans: A New Way to Prevent Elimination of Minority Groups in the United States.”
At first blush it might appear that the heart of this question is the constitutionality of race selective abortion. I suggest, however, that the discussion should focus rather on three diverging questions: 1) Can or should bioethics law protect minorities? 2) Should bioethics advocate for protection from racial discrimination? 3) Are such policies essential to the survival and development of minority groups of color? Addressing each question considers the intersectionality of racism and bioethics. While abortion may be constitutionally protected and part of current public policy, it may also be a systemic aspect of racism. So in my 7 short minutes I attempted to offer some compelling facts, then sketched my ideas on the three diverging questions, and was grateful for the input from colleagues. (Look for the full article soon.)
The debate over racism in abortion is a critically important one, made more particularly precarious when considering current cries against racial inequality. This is unmistakably a form of racism – potentially systemic racism. Bioethicists and constitutionalists alike are important contributing voices to this racial inequality trepidation.
Family restoration requires that American law and
public policy must move forward against racism in bioethics, particularly in
reproductive health.
No comments:
Post a Comment