Abortion Trafficking: A Closer Look at Recent Legislation
Tennessee and Oklahoma have recently made headlines for proposed legislation that seeks to criminalize “abortion trafficking.” This felony would be committed when a person recruits, harbors, or transports a pregnant minor to procure an illegal abortion or obtain an abortifacient without parental consent. The penalties for such actions range from two to fifteen years of imprisonment, depending on the state.
The bills in these states are based on the National Right to Life Committee’s model anti-abortion legislation, developed by James Bopp Jr., a prominent attorney known for his work on Citizens United. The term “abortion trafficking” was strategically chosen to evoke images of deceit, coercion, and exploitation. By likening abortion to trafficking, proponents of the legislation aim to prevent what they see as circumvention of abortion bans through federally regulated practices like telemedicine.
The history of anti-trafficking laws in the United States is rooted in the conflation of forced labor with sex work. The Page Act of 1875 targeted low-wage workers from China and other Asian countries, focusing on both economic exploitation and moral concerns related to prostitution. In more recent times, conservative feminists and evangelical Christians have aligned to combat sex trafficking, equating voluntary sex work with exploitation.
The focus on sex trafficking has led to legislative measures that criminalize sex work, even when it is consensual. The U.S. criminal justice system has been criticized for its treatment of sex workers, with some courts offering a choice between social services and incarceration. This approach has been termed “penal welfare” by legal scholars.
The term “abortion trafficking” draws parallels with the Mann Act of 1910, which targeted individuals transporting women for prostitution or debauchery. By framing the pregnant minor as a victim who is passively moved around to undergo an abortion against her will, the legislation reinforces the narrative that abortion is inherently coercive.
The bills also raise questions about consent and victimhood, particularly in cases of statutory rape where the minor’s ability to make decisions is called into question. The language of the legislation implies that any young person seeking an abortion is a victim, regardless of their circumstances.
Recent research has shed light on the challenges faced by pregnant rape survivors in states with restrictive abortion laws. The statistics presented in these studies highlight the prevalence of sexual assault and the barriers survivors face in accessing reproductive healthcare.
While the intent behind anti-trafficking legislation may be to protect vulnerable individuals, critics argue that it contributes to the stigmatization of abortion and reproductive rights. By framing abortion as a crime and emphasizing victimhood, these laws perpetuate harmful narratives that undermine women’s autonomy and decision-making.
In conclusion, the debate over “abortion trafficking” legislation raises important questions about consent, victimhood, and reproductive rights. As lawmakers continue to push for restrictive measures, it is essential to consider the impact of such laws on individuals seeking abortion care and their right to make informed choices about their bodies.