Abstract
Excerpted From: Cindy Hsieh, The Constitutionality of Pennsylvania's Sex-selective Abortion Ban Post-Dobbs and its Discriminatory Impact on Asian American Pacific Islander Women, 85 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 457 (Winter, 2024) (195 Footnotes) (Full Document)
Even though Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health has altered women's reproductive landscape, there is still more reproductive freedom of choice for women to lose in states where abortion access is still legal. Selective abortion bans prohibit the use of abortion for a specific reason. Accordingly, sex-selective abortion bans prohibit the sex selection of a fetus as a reason for obtaining an abortion. These bans are one of the most proposed abortion bans in the United States. Rooted in cultural stereotypes and misunderstandings of certain ethnic groups and their supposed preference for male offspring, they reflect complex social dynamics. Thus, the existence of sex-selective abortion bans in states where abortion is still legal creates a discriminatory and prejudicial impact on Asian American PacificIslander (AAPI) women. Protections for women are lacking in these states and there has been no effort to challenge these discriminatory abortion bans. Pennsylvania is one of the largest states to adopt a problematic sex-selective abortion ban. The ban is unconstitutional under Pennsylvania law, and opponents should challenge it as such.
Accordingly, this Note will discuss sex-selective abortion bans, specifically Pennsylvania's, and how their discriminatory purpose and impact should be deemed unconstitutional under state law. Part I explains sex-selective abortion bans and their legislative history. It gives an overview of currently enacted bans across the United States, with a greater focus on Pennsylvania's sex-selective abortion ban. Part II addresses how sex-selective abortion bans negatively impact AAPI women, including how AAPI women are subjected to racial profiling by healthcare providers, in addition to increased potential criminal penalties and stigma in the community. Part III examines arguments against sex-selective abortion bans and explains how these bans ultimately fail to discourage sex-selection abortions. The focus of these bans is often on less effective solutions if their goal is truly to minimize gender discrimination. Examples of other less discriminatory options that legislators have chosen to not regulate are given. Part IV offers and analyzes certain policy recommendations for what can be done to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's sex-selective abortion ban. Among some of the constitutional protections for women against selective abortion bans are the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and Pennsylvania's Equal Rights Amendment. Last, this Note will analyze the impact of Dobbs specifically on Pennsylvania law.
[. . .]
The threat of SSABs, especially with the stripping of women's fundamental right to abortion access after Dobbs, is larger than ever. In states where abortion access is still legal, SSABs create more harm than good. PA is one of these states where the constitutionality of its SSAB needs to be re-examined. The perpetuation of harmful stereotypes of AAPI communities and cultural practices is placed under even more fire after the increase in anti-Asian sentiment post COVID-19. SSABs suggest that AAPI women are more likely to engage in gender-biased practices, despite there being no evidence that this is the case. There are no benefits and outcomes of SSABs relieving gender discrimination. Evidence only points to the contrary, where discrimination and singling out of AAPI women for government surveillance and control over their reproductive choices exist.
L.L.M., 2025, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne; J.D., 2025, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; M.P.H., 2025, Health Policy & Management, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health; M.S., 2020, Applied Math, PennWest California; B.A., 2019, PennWest California; B.S., 2019, University of Toronto.
