Practicing Pathology: The Rhetoric of Pathology in Jane Doe's Struggle to Obtain an Abortion in Federal Immigration Custody

Abstract

In October 2017, the stories of Jane Doe, Roe, and Poe, young women detained at a Texas immigration detention center run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) made national headlines. They were pregnant, undocumented immigrants who were denied access to abortion because the ORR argued that they were “not people for constitutional purposes.” Using rhetorical silence, paternalistic rhetoric, and dehumanizing rhetoric, ORR director Scott Lloyd had the ultimate power of definition that allowed him to rhetorically pathologize these women as undeserving of rights and health care. Tapping into cultural and historical discourses that treat abortion and immigration as pathological and measures of an afflicted society, Lloyd and ORR policy constituted a rhetoric of pathology that demonized these women for their “crimes” of illegal immigration, sex, and requesting abortion. Their stories and the rhetorical strategies used to justify their oppression are particularly important in the continued fight for women's bodily autonomy and immigrant rights in a time of heightened border security, deportation, and family separation.

Influences on reproductive decision-making among forcibly displaced women resettling in high-income countries: a scoping review and thematic analysis

“…The 19 included articles were published between 2013 and 2022, with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 1,773 people (see Table 3 for article characteristics). Thirteen articles reported on qualitative findings (including two mixed-methods studies that only reported on qualitative data) (13/19 articles, 68.4%) [ 40 , 41 ], three quantitative (3/19 articles, 15.8%) [ 42 – 44 ], one mixed-methods (1/19 articles, 5.3%) [ 45 ], one scoping review (1/19 articles, 5.3%) [ 46 ], and one narrative review (1/19 articles, 5.3%) [ 47 ]. Of the 17 primary articles, four used convenience sampling (4/17 articles, 23.5%) [ 42 , 43 , 45 , 48 ], three used purposive (3/17 articles, 17.6%) [ 40 , 49 , 50 ], four used both purposive and snowball (4/17 articles, 23.5%) [ 51 – 54 ], two used purposive and convenience (2/17 articles, 11.8%) [ 41 , 55 ], one used informant-purposive and snowball (1/17 articles, 5.9%) [ 56 ], one used convenience and snowball (1/17 articles, 5.9%) [ 57 ], one used purposive, gatekeeper and snowball (1/17 articles, 5.9%) [ 58 ], and one used stratified random sampling (1/17 articles, 5.9%) [ 44 ].…”

“…Seven articles included women from African countries only, including Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and Ethiopia (7/19 articles, 36.8%) [ 40 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 58 ]. Two articles included women from Syria (2/19 articles, 10.5%) [ 43 , 50 ], two included women from Nepal (2/19 articles, 10.5%) [ 48 , 53 ], one focused on women from Mexico (1/19 articles, 5.3%) [ 47 ], and one included women from mainland China (1/19 articles, 5.3%) [ 54 ]. Four articles included women from countries across continents, including Uganda, Iraq, Bosnia, India, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, and Russia (4/19 articles, 21.1%) [ 41 , 44 , 53 , 57 ].…”

“…Of these, five defined forced displacement by application for refugee status (5/12 articles, 41.7%) [ 41 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 58 ], two by civil unrest in the home country (2/12 articles, 16.7%) [ 40 , 55 ], and two by seeking refuge or asylum (not necessarily applying) (2/12 articles, 16.7%) [ 53 , 54 ]. The narrative review included women detained at an immigration detention centre (1/12 articles, 8.3%) [ 47 ], one study defined ‘forced migration’ (1/12 articles, 8.3%) [ 43 ], and one included women who were born in refugee camps (1/12 articles, 8.3%) [ 48 ]. Five articles disaggregated between forced and voluntary migration (5/19 articles, 26.3%) [ 42 , 44 – 46 , 51 ].…”

“…Two articles included influences on women’s RDM during displacement [ 47 , 53 ]. These influences occurred whilst women were in refugee camps [ 53 ] and immigration detention [ 47 ].…”

At the Borders of the Body Politic: Fetal Citizens, Pregnant Migrants, and Reproductive Injustices in Immigration Detention

“…But undocumented immigrants’ fetuses are not always, only, or simply excluded; they are selectively included, excluded, or positioned hierarchically in relation to the gestating person. As Skye de Saint Felix (2019) shows, the ORR’s denial of Doe’s abortion request is underwritten by racialized, gendered pathologization of pregnant immigrants. Even so, the ORR’s ban on “facilitating” abortions and their director’s openly pro-life rhetoric (Winterberger 2019) contradict the conclusion that undocumented immigrants’ fetuses cannot be represented as fetal citizens who deserve state protection.…”