Written by: Andre Fabian
Edited by: Isabel Angres
Edited by: Isabel Angres
In light of recent events, with the overturning of the landmark case Roe vs Wade, many citizens are left questioning the stability of formerly established “precedents.” In this article, we explore the necessity of Roe among queer communities. This discussion first highlights the protections offered by the ruling, then the general history revolving around the intersection between queer identities and healthcare. Afterwards, the article investigates the future consequences of its overturning on both healthcare and health education.
Originally passed in 1973, Roe set the precedent for advancements in reproductive rights and privacy; it was predominantly used by progressive advocates to establish inclusive and holistic baselines for equitable healthcare. This cementation of abortion as a fundamental right for all individuals, regardless of identity, ensured queer, transgender, and non-binary communities access to safe and confidential abortions. Reversal of the clause produces hesitancy in queer communities, redirecting abortion-seeking individuals towards more drastic and potentially harmful pathways (Vella 2022). This ruling stands as a direct violation of the moral rights of queer individuals, especially considering the history of prejudice against the queer community.
Unfortunately, discrimination in the healthcare industry is not a novel feat–throughout much of modern history, queer individuals were often on the front lines of protests and riots advocating for changes to unethical public policy. Fights for gender equality, freedom of sexual expression, and accessibility to contraceptives originated in the HIV/AIDS movements and catapulted our public health systems to their current states. With Stonewall, the most well-recognized HIV/AIDS riot, queer voices were consolidated into a large platform designated to raise awareness for their healthcare issues (Verbanas 2019). Organizations such as ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) “advocated for those living and dying from AIDS to be treated with human dignity in hospitals” (Crouch 2021). With this in mind, protecting the rights many civil heroes died fighting for becomes paramount in the preservation of bodily autonomy for all individuals.
Circulating back to modern times, a 2022 report by The 19th on American citizens reported 20 percent of LGBTQ+ individuals felt discriminated against because of their gender/sexual orientation. On a similar note, 24 percent of LGBTQ+ individuals were blamed for their health problems, compared to only 9 percent of non-queer individuals (Orion & Mithani 2022). These numbers are staggeringly high, providing evidence for unethical treatment and emphasizing an already prevalent distrust in the healthcare system.
From this discussion, it can be ascertained that specific, marginalized demographics have less healthcare accessibility compared to other individuals. As such, the propagation of the aforementioned inequalities directly violates the principle of healthcare as a fundamental human right. Fact sheet No. 31 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, The Right to Health, decrees “Health services, goods, and facilities must be provided to all without any discrimination” (UN 1966). The purpose of healthcare is to give people opportunities to receive adequate, safe, and confidential treatment, regardless of identity and status. In removing a necessary treatment which typically services women, transgender, and non-binary communities, the autonomy in choosing whether or not to have an abortion disappears.
The shrinking of queerspaces in healthcare may also carry implications for queerspaces in education. In “Queer Pedagogy in Sex Education,” Drazenovich highlights a permeating fear in health educators, ultimately preventing them from implementing sexual education in their lesson plans. Dismissal of the topic as “too inappropriate” directly limits students’ access to current and relevant information on protective and safe behaviors. This especially harms queer students, who may be unable to rely on their parents, family, or friends for support in their sexuality and sexual exploration. Without queer sex-ed, Drazenovich argues, queer students’ are forced to rely on potentially inaccurate and harmful media outlets for timely information (Drazenovich 2015). Furthermore, the existent mistrust between queer communities and healthcare systems greatly limits the options for queer individuals seeking advice and guidance.
With the loss of queerspaces in both healthcare and education, LGBTQ+ individuals may feel excluded from traditional society and its various social institutions. In “Queering Foundations,” Mayo contextualizes on the existence of a “postgay” generation, citing a reluctance of individuals to associate themselves with either closeted normalcy, or an out queer identity, avoiding the extremes and their corresponding labels. His argument extends to the concept of conformity, noting how children of contemporary times act to appease their parents and the adults they are surrounded with, rather than from their own, inherent beliefs (Mayo 2007). The progression of society relies on the dissemination of current knowledge across all individuals, spanning generations, over millennia. As such, it becomes the responsibility of adults and educators to supply these students with various facets of information, granting them the autonomy to make their own choices based on the knowledge available to them.
Ultimately, the cases Roe and Casey gave individuals the right to choose an abortion, or rather, the right to choose a healthcare treatment they find appropriate for themselves and their given situation. Reversal of these clauses not only limits access to healthcare for women, but to non-binary and transgender individuals who often already face identity-related persecution in the healthcare industry. The return to early twentieth century healthcare standards can mark subsequent returns in education and other industries, further limiting the moral rights and access of queer communities in modern day America.
References
Crouch, Laura. “LGBTQIA+ Health Disparities.” Social Welfare History Project, 2 June 2021, socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/health-nutrition/lgbtqia-health-disparities/.
Drazenovich G. 2015. Queer Pedagogy in Sex Education. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation. 38(2):1. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.38.2.07.
Mayo C. 2007. Queering Foundations: Queer and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Educational Research. Review of Research in Education. 31:78–94. [accessed 2023 Mar 15]. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20185102.
Rummler, Orion, and Jasmine Mithani. ““I Felt Judged”: LGBTQ+ Americans Report Significantly More Medical Discrimination.” The 19th, 15 Sept. 2022, 19thnews.org/2022/09/poll-healthcare-lgbtq-medical-discrimination/.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Fact Sheet No. 31, The Right to Health, June 2008, No. 31, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/48625a742.html [accessed 15 March 2023]
Vella, Lauren. “How Roe v. Wade’s Reversal Could Affect the LGBT Community.” The Hill, 8 May 2022, thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3479755-how-roe-v-wades-reversal-could-effect-the-lgbt-community/. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023.
Verbanas, Patti. “How the Stonewall Riots Affected LGBTQ Health Care.” Www.rutgers.edu, 17 June 2019, www.rutgers.edu/news/how-stonewall-riots-affected-lgbtq-health-care.
Originally passed in 1973, Roe set the precedent for advancements in reproductive rights and privacy; it was predominantly used by progressive advocates to establish inclusive and holistic baselines for equitable healthcare. This cementation of abortion as a fundamental right for all individuals, regardless of identity, ensured queer, transgender, and non-binary communities access to safe and confidential abortions. Reversal of the clause produces hesitancy in queer communities, redirecting abortion-seeking individuals towards more drastic and potentially harmful pathways (Vella 2022). This ruling stands as a direct violation of the moral rights of queer individuals, especially considering the history of prejudice against the queer community.
Unfortunately, discrimination in the healthcare industry is not a novel feat–throughout much of modern history, queer individuals were often on the front lines of protests and riots advocating for changes to unethical public policy. Fights for gender equality, freedom of sexual expression, and accessibility to contraceptives originated in the HIV/AIDS movements and catapulted our public health systems to their current states. With Stonewall, the most well-recognized HIV/AIDS riot, queer voices were consolidated into a large platform designated to raise awareness for their healthcare issues (Verbanas 2019). Organizations such as ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) “advocated for those living and dying from AIDS to be treated with human dignity in hospitals” (Crouch 2021). With this in mind, protecting the rights many civil heroes died fighting for becomes paramount in the preservation of bodily autonomy for all individuals.
Circulating back to modern times, a 2022 report by The 19th on American citizens reported 20 percent of LGBTQ+ individuals felt discriminated against because of their gender/sexual orientation. On a similar note, 24 percent of LGBTQ+ individuals were blamed for their health problems, compared to only 9 percent of non-queer individuals (Orion & Mithani 2022). These numbers are staggeringly high, providing evidence for unethical treatment and emphasizing an already prevalent distrust in the healthcare system.
From this discussion, it can be ascertained that specific, marginalized demographics have less healthcare accessibility compared to other individuals. As such, the propagation of the aforementioned inequalities directly violates the principle of healthcare as a fundamental human right. Fact sheet No. 31 of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights, The Right to Health, decrees “Health services, goods, and facilities must be provided to all without any discrimination” (UN 1966). The purpose of healthcare is to give people opportunities to receive adequate, safe, and confidential treatment, regardless of identity and status. In removing a necessary treatment which typically services women, transgender, and non-binary communities, the autonomy in choosing whether or not to have an abortion disappears.
The shrinking of queerspaces in healthcare may also carry implications for queerspaces in education. In “Queer Pedagogy in Sex Education,” Drazenovich highlights a permeating fear in health educators, ultimately preventing them from implementing sexual education in their lesson plans. Dismissal of the topic as “too inappropriate” directly limits students’ access to current and relevant information on protective and safe behaviors. This especially harms queer students, who may be unable to rely on their parents, family, or friends for support in their sexuality and sexual exploration. Without queer sex-ed, Drazenovich argues, queer students’ are forced to rely on potentially inaccurate and harmful media outlets for timely information (Drazenovich 2015). Furthermore, the existent mistrust between queer communities and healthcare systems greatly limits the options for queer individuals seeking advice and guidance.
With the loss of queerspaces in both healthcare and education, LGBTQ+ individuals may feel excluded from traditional society and its various social institutions. In “Queering Foundations,” Mayo contextualizes on the existence of a “postgay” generation, citing a reluctance of individuals to associate themselves with either closeted normalcy, or an out queer identity, avoiding the extremes and their corresponding labels. His argument extends to the concept of conformity, noting how children of contemporary times act to appease their parents and the adults they are surrounded with, rather than from their own, inherent beliefs (Mayo 2007). The progression of society relies on the dissemination of current knowledge across all individuals, spanning generations, over millennia. As such, it becomes the responsibility of adults and educators to supply these students with various facets of information, granting them the autonomy to make their own choices based on the knowledge available to them.
Ultimately, the cases Roe and Casey gave individuals the right to choose an abortion, or rather, the right to choose a healthcare treatment they find appropriate for themselves and their given situation. Reversal of these clauses not only limits access to healthcare for women, but to non-binary and transgender individuals who often already face identity-related persecution in the healthcare industry. The return to early twentieth century healthcare standards can mark subsequent returns in education and other industries, further limiting the moral rights and access of queer communities in modern day America.
References
Crouch, Laura. “LGBTQIA+ Health Disparities.” Social Welfare History Project, 2 June 2021, socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/health-nutrition/lgbtqia-health-disparities/.
Drazenovich G. 2015. Queer Pedagogy in Sex Education. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation. 38(2):1. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.38.2.07.
Mayo C. 2007. Queering Foundations: Queer and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Educational Research. Review of Research in Education. 31:78–94. [accessed 2023 Mar 15]. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20185102.
Rummler, Orion, and Jasmine Mithani. ““I Felt Judged”: LGBTQ+ Americans Report Significantly More Medical Discrimination.” The 19th, 15 Sept. 2022, 19thnews.org/2022/09/poll-healthcare-lgbtq-medical-discrimination/.
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Fact Sheet No. 31, The Right to Health, June 2008, No. 31, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/48625a742.html [accessed 15 March 2023]
Vella, Lauren. “How Roe v. Wade’s Reversal Could Affect the LGBT Community.” The Hill, 8 May 2022, thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3479755-how-roe-v-wades-reversal-could-effect-the-lgbt-community/. Accessed 15 Mar. 2023.
Verbanas, Patti. “How the Stonewall Riots Affected LGBTQ Health Care.” Www.rutgers.edu, 17 June 2019, www.rutgers.edu/news/how-stonewall-riots-affected-lgbtq-health-care.
Proudly powered by Weebly