Threats to Contraception – Stanford Law Review

Report on Emerging Threats to Contraceptive Access and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Contraceptive Access as a Cornerstone for Sustainable Development

Following the legal precedent set by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the stability of contraceptive rights has become a subject of significant concern. This report analyzes the argument that immediate threats to contraceptive access extend beyond potential Supreme Court rulings. The erosion of access directly undermines progress toward several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality), by limiting sexual and reproductive health services.

Analysis of Interconnected Threats to Contraceptive Access

Contraceptive access is being compromised by three primary forces that, while formal legal protections may remain, create substantial barriers to reproductive healthcare. These developments have profound implications for global development targets.

1. Post-Dobbs Reductions in Healthcare Infrastructure

   The landscape following the Dobbs decision has seen significant funding cuts and the closure of reproductive health clinics. This degradation of healthcare infrastructure creates “contraceptive deserts,” severely limiting availability.

   • Impact on SDG 3: This directly obstructs Target 3.7, which aims to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services.
   • Impact on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Clinic closures disproportionately affect low-income and marginalized communities, exacerbating existing health and economic disparities.

2. Expansion of Parental- and Conscience-Based Claims

   There is a growing trend of legal and ethical claims based on parental rights and conscience-based objections from healthcare providers. These claims are increasingly used to deny contraceptive services, particularly to adolescents and other vulnerable groups.

   • Impact on SDG 5: Such claims undermine bodily autonomy and the ability of women and girls to make independent decisions about their health, which is a cornerstone of gender equality.
   • Impact on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The expansion of these exemptions challenges the strength and inclusivity of legal institutions designed to protect fundamental health rights.

3. Misinformation-Driven Cultural and Regulatory Shifts

   The proliferation of misinformation regarding contraception is fostering cultural shifts that create a political environment conducive to restrictive regulation. This erodes public trust in established medical science and paves the way for policies that limit access.

   • Impact on SDG 3: The spread of health misinformation is a significant threat to public health, undermining efforts to promote well-being through informed choices.
   • Impact on SDG 5: These cultural shifts often reinforce gender stereotypes and seek to roll back progress on women’s rights and reproductive freedom.

Conclusion: A Compounding Threat to Global Goals

The combined effect of these developments represents a significant threat to contraceptive access, even in the absence of direct legal prohibitions. This erosion of reproductive healthcare access constitutes a major setback for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The primary SDGs impacted include:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 5: Gender Equality
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Addressing these interconnected threats is imperative for safeguarding public health, promoting gender equality, and ensuring continued progress toward a sustainable and equitable future.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article directly addresses public health by focusing on “threats to contraception” and the erosion of “contraceptive access.” Access to contraception is a critical component of sexual and reproductive health, which is a cornerstone of SDG 3. The mention of “funding cuts and clinic closures” highlights the degradation of health infrastructure necessary to achieve good health for all.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • The issue of contraceptive access is intrinsically linked to gender equality. The ability to control one’s reproductive health is fundamental to women’s empowerment, affecting their educational, economic, and social opportunities. By discussing how access is being imperiled, the article touches upon the core of SDG 5, which aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article discusses the legal and institutional context surrounding contraception, referencing the “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization” Supreme Court case, “expanding parental- and conscience-based claims,” and the threat of “restrictive regulation.” These points relate to the stability of legal protections and the strength of institutions in upholding rights, which are central themes of SDG 16.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. Target 3.7: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services

   • The article’s central theme is the erosion of “contraceptive access,” which directly counters the goal of universal access to family planning services outlined in this target. The text explicitly mentions “post-Dobbs funding cuts and clinic closures” as mechanisms that undermine the provision of these essential healthcare services.

2. Target 5.6: Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights

   • This target focuses on the rights-based aspect of reproductive health. The article’s discussion of the “future of the right to contraception” and how developments “imperil contraception even as formal protections remain intact” directly relates to this target. It highlights a situation where established reproductive rights are being threatened.

3. Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

   • The article points to “restrictive regulation” and “expanding parental- and conscience-based claims” as forces eroding access to contraception. These can be interpreted as policies that may have a discriminatory impact, particularly on women and girls, thereby connecting to the goal of promoting and enforcing non-discriminatory laws and policies.

Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. Implied Indicator for Target 3.7: Access to and availability of contraceptive services

   • The article does not provide statistics but implies key indicators for measuring progress. The phrases “contraceptive access is eroding” and “clinic closures” suggest that the number of service delivery points for family planning and the proportion of the population with easy access to them are decreasing. This aligns with official indicators that measure the availability of essential health services.

2. Implied Indicator for Target 5.6: Legal and regulatory frameworks guaranteeing access to reproductive health

   • The article’s focus on the legal landscape (“Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” “restrictive regulation”) implies an indicator related to the strength and enforcement of laws and policies that guarantee access to sexual and reproductive healthcare. The erosion of “formal protections” suggests a negative trend for this indicator.

3. Implied Indicator for Target 3.7/5.6: Public funding for reproductive health services

   • The mention of “post-Dobbs funding cuts” directly implies that the level of government and public funding for contraception and family planning services is a critical indicator. A decrease in funding, as suggested by the article, would be a measure of regression from the target.

Summary of Findings

Source: stanfordlawreview.org