Sexual and reproductive rights (SRR) advocacy is usually framed as a struggle against patriarchal ideologies and gender stereotypes. I argue that this dyad needs to be expanded to include other normalized frameworks, such as the dominant androcentric economic paradigm and the biomedical paradigm, which act in synergy with patriarchal ideologies to create laws and public policies affecting women’s SRR. Using case examples of how these synergies occur in different contexts, I argue that without such expansion, the SRR movement continually finds itself manipulated and trapped into a posture of resisting different hostile forces.
Latin American controversies over abortion have undergone a process of legalization and constitutionalization that illustrates a change of the role of legality across a region historically identified for the pervasiveness of the (un)rule of law. This gradual transformation in the role of law and the constitutional framings can be observed in the recursive cycles of conservative and feminist legal mobilization moving from courts, to executive and legislative regulations. The paper offers a study of such cycles of reform in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.
When the Vatican first raised concerns about the use of the term “gender” in public law in the 1990s, it claimed to do so in defense of what its spokesperson, Mary Ann Glendon, then sought to describe as a more inclusive feminism. But Pope Francis has now alleged that “every feminism ends up being machismo in a skirt.” With this evolution in mind, this paper will look at the recent opening of new fronts in the war on “gender” – geographic (from Donald Trump’s U.S. to Bolsanaro’s Brazil), educational (from Hungary’s ban on gender studies to the French rejection of the ABCDs of Equality), and constitutional (such as the Bulgarian Constitutional Court’s rejection of the Istanbul Convention because of its use of “gender”).