Protect and Control: Coverture's Logics Across Welfare Policy and Abortion Law
Margaret Mary Downey,Clare Daniel,Anne McGlynn-Wright,Karissa Haugeberg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231186320
Abstract:In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the federal constitutional right to abortion, states have begun to recriminalize the procedure. These abortion bans raise important questions about the political and social status of women and pregnant people in the United States. Moreover, restrictions in social welfare programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which serve low-income pregnant people and parents, raise similar questions. The regulation and administration of all three are framed by race, class, and gender. To understand how these restrictions (a) claim to protect women but ultimately function to control, police, and surveil and (b) rely on imagined, stereotype-laden psychological states such as vulnerability, irresponsibility, or irrationality, we turn to the British Common Law doctrine of coverture, which subsumed a married woman's legal, financial, and political identities under her husband's. The American colonies, and later, states of the United States, drew from British Common Law to craft laws that regulated relationships between men and women. Taken together, this analysis can provide a more comprehensive accounting of the cumulative harms experienced by women, poor people, people of color, and pregnant people in today's health and social welfare landscape. We conclude with recommendations for psychologists and other mental health providers to address, in practice and advocacy, the ethical dilemmas and obligations raised by the reach of coverture's logics in people's lives.