Abortion DA

1NC
The court’s claim of intrinsic value to life is used to override women’s decisional
authority on abortion.
Seigel 13 Reva Siegel, Yale University - Law School ; University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center
on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law ["Dignity and the Duty to Protect Unborn Life," 07-
26-2013, SSRN, URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2298275] kly

public health arguments for liberalizing access to abortion

Appeals to dignity in debates leading to constitutionalization of abortion In the 1960s, began to spread in Western Europe and

North America. Critics argued that poor women unequally suffered the health harms of criminalization , and doctors sought freedom to practice in
circumstances in which the criminal law was erratically enforced.4 By the end of the decade, however, a newly mobilizing women’s movement had joined public health advocates in challenging the criminalization of abortion. No longer were reformers satisfied with liberalizing indications
for abortion (exceptions to criminal bans on abortion, typically determined in the individual case by permission of a committee of doctors). They now sought repeal of indications legislation, and, at the very least, enactment of periodic legislation that would give to women capacity to
decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term during the early months of pregnancy— legislation sometimes termed ‘on demand’, because it shifted control of the decision whether to carry a pregnancy to term to the pregnant woman who was no longer obliged to plead her case to a

Feminists challenged the criminalization of abortion

committee of doctors. 5 arguing that criminalizing abortion on new grounds, laws

violated women’s dignity laws criminalizing abortion took from

. The claim was both practical and symbolic. Under prevailing social arrangements, they argued,

women decisions about their health, sexual relations, family needs, economic independence, and
political participation and perpetuated status-based controls over women’s lives These
. Laws criminalizing abortion thus reflected .

escalated the practical and symbolic stakes of the abortion debate and transformed it into a
associations, once identified,

site of struggle over women’s citizenship .6 In 1969, Betty Friedan, president of the newly formed National Organization of Women, mobilized these arguments in a call for the repeal of laws criminalizing abortion, in
the process fatefully reframing American policy debate over abortion reform.7 Friedan insisted: ‘[T]here is no freedom, no equality, no full human dignity and personhood possible for women until we assert and demand the control over our own bodies, over our own reproductive process
… The real sexual revolution is the emergence of women from passivity, from thing-ness, to full self-determination, to full dignity …’8 This feminist claim to dignity in making decisions about bearing children would be publicized through speak-outs and through civil disobedience. In
France, 343 women declared that they had had abortions in a manifesto published in Le Nouvel Observateur in April 1971.9 Two months after publication of the French manifesto, Aktion 218, a women’s organization in West Germany named for the code provision criminalizing abortion,
published in Der Stern the names of 374 women who had had abortions. They denounced the law criminalizing abortion because it ‘branded them as criminals’, and in their manifesto declared: ‘I am opposed to Paragraph 218 and for desired children.’10 In other nations, similar speak-

Opponents of abortion reform appeal ed to dignity as well

outs followed. opponents were not seeking . In appealing to human dignity,

abortion laws that would express respect for women’s decisional authority but instead sought abortion
laws that would express respect for the value of life itself. In 1970, the Central Committee of German Catholics, an association of Catholic laypersons, argued that decriminalizing

If becoming life is not protected, including with the means of the criminal
abortion would violate West German constitutional guarantees of dignity: ‘

law, unconditional fundamental principles of a society founded on human dignity are not assured for
long .’11 During the 1970s, these national and transnational debates led to the enactment of legislation in a number of countries that liberalized access to abortion. Those frustrated in politics increasingly brought their claims to court, leading to the first constitutional judgments

claims on dignity played an increasingly important

on abortion. 12 Claims on dignity in the German abortion decisions Beginning with the West German judgement in 1975, and accelerating over time,

role in the constitutional law of abortion . The West German judgement famously interpreted constitutional protection for human dignity to require protection for unborn life. Less appreciated is the way in which the
court’s judgement also reflected an engagement with the dignity claims of the West German women’s movement. In what follows, I consider how dignity figured in two German abortion judgements set almost twenty years apart. The first German judgement, from 1975, appealed to
dignity as respect for life to strike down periodic legislation adopted in response to the Aktion 218 campaign. In 1993, after reunification, the Federal Constitutional Court qualified its judgement in ways that acknowledged competing claims on dignity. In 1975, the Federal Constitutional
Court held that West Germany’s 1974 law, which decriminalized abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy for women who received abortion-dissuasive counselling, violated the Basic Law.13 The court reasoned that the duty of the state to protect unborn life was derived from

Where human life exists, human dignity is present to it; it is not decisive that the
the Basic Law’s protection for life and for dignity: ‘

bearer of this dignity himself be conscious of it and know personally how to preserve it .’14 Without deciding whether the unborn held a

the court concluded that there was an objective dimension to the right to life that government was
right to life,

obliged to respect by law.15 The court famously justified its decision to strike down the 1974 statute
liberalizing access to abortion by invoking the Holocaust repudiated .16 Less well known is the court’s engagement with feminist claims; the 1975 decision expressly

feminist dignity claims The

. The Federal Constitutional Court warned the legislature not to ‘acquiesce’ in popular beliefs about abortion that might have developed in response to ‘passionate discussion of the abortion problematic’.17

court expressly rejected the parliament’s efforts to devise a framework that respected the dignity of
both women and the unborn . It rejected the view of legislators who sought to identify a period during pregnancy to respect ‘the right to self-determination of the woman which flows from human dignity vis-à-vis all others, including the

on the grounds that it was ‘not reconcilable with the value ordering of the Basic Law Given the
child’s right to life’, ’.18

overriding importance of the dignity of human life, the court concluded the legal order may not make ,‘

the woman’s right to self-determination the sole guideline of its rulemaking. The state must proceed, as
a matter of principle, from a duty to carry the pregnancy to term. ’19 The Federal Constitutional Court not only rejected the parliament’s efforts to coordinate dignity

further, and denied that pregnant women had claims of deliberative autonomy
concerns of women and the unborn; the opinion went

concerning motherhood . The court recognized a constitutional duty to protect life that required government to ‘proceed … from a duty to carry the pregnancy to term’, that is, to enforce women’s duty to mother. The court derived these duties
from nature, reasoning that the duty to protect life was ‘entrusted by nature in the first place to the protection of the mother. To reawaken and, if required to strengthen the maternal duty to protect, where it is lost, should be the principal goal of the endeavours of the state by the

protection of life.’ The duty to protect life obliged government to ‘strengthen the readiness of the expectant mother
to accept the pregnancy as her own responsibility’. On this view, women naturally choose to protect
20

unborn life; where nature falters, law must enforce choices women ought naturally to make.

US reproductive rights are key to global efforts to slow population

growth – overpop = extinction and makes every impact inevitable
De Valk 3 (EJ, Expert on Biodiversity @ Population Connection, "Statement of
Policy--Mission Statement," 5/3,
http://www.populationconnection.org/About_Us/policies.html)
Population Connection believes the well-being and even the survival of humanity depend on
the attainment of an equilibrium between population and the environment. Just as the
earth and its resources of land, air and water are limited, so are the demands that can be placed upon them. Continued
population growth is foremost among the factors aggravating deforestation, wildlife extinction,
climate change and other critical environmental and social problems. It also erodes democratic
government, multiplies urban problems, consumes agricultural land, increases volumes of waste, heightens
competition for scarce resources and threatens the aspirations of the poor for a better life.  The only
acceptable solution to the population problem is through expanding educational, advocacy and
service efforts that lower birth rates. Rather than support a larger population at a poorer level, we believe it is preferable
to support a smaller population at adequate standards of living.  Population Connection recognizes the gravity of global
overpopulation and encourages citizens in every nation to work towards slowing population growth. Recognizing the
interdependence of the nations of the earth, we support the development and growth of citizen organizations in other countries
dedicated to those ends.  As a U.S. based organization, Population Connection works primarily to educate and motivate Americans to
help meet the global population challenge, and to mobilize this support for the adoption of policies and programs necessary to slow
global population growth.
Because the United States is the chief consumer of the world's resources,
slowing its population growth is disproportionately important for protecting the global
environment. Because the United States has a major influence on international
political, economic and military affairs, reshaping its policies is important for the
success of international efforts to slow population growth.
 2NC – Uniqueness – Accessible Now
Abortion is accessible now in the U.S.
Dannenfelser, 16 – President of the Susan B. Anthony List (Marjorie
Dannenfelser, 6/24/16, “A Hillary Clinton Presidency Would Be Terrible for the
Anti-Abortion Rights Movement,” http://time.com/4381684/scotus-abortion-
clinton/) 
From one perspective, thingscould hardly be worse for right-to-life advocates . More than four
decades after Roe v. Wade, the basics of that ruling are still in place and the United States still sees
more than one million abortions each year. Abortions are legal in half the states even in the third
trimester, public funds flow to abortion in 17 states, and the nation’s largest abortion
provider, Planned Parenthood, receives more than $500 million from the government each year.
Recent efforts to limit abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy have been struck
down, as have two states’ laws to limit abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

States are expanding reproductive rights now which checks conservative courts

Capello 20 Olivia Cappello joined the Guttmacher Institute’s Public Policy Division in February 2016. She supports the
Institute’s state policy team as a Senior Public Policy Assistant, monitoring legislative trends related to abortion, health care
coverage and religious refusals. She also assists in the team’s public outreach efforts by creating social media and advocacy
resources. Before coming to Guttmacher, Olivia interned as a Reproductive Rights Activist Service Corps Fellow at Raising
Women’s Voices in New York, and at the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. She is an alumna of
Smith College, where she studied government and biology., Guttmacher Institute , "In 2020, States Are Primed to Build on
Recent Gains in Protecting and Expanding Abortion Rights | Guttmacher Institute", February 13
2020, https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2020/02/2020-states-are-primed-build-recent-gains-protecting-and-expanding-abortion-
rights#
First published February 13, 2020: The year 2020 is shaping up to be a tumultuous one for abortion rights, as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that could
seriously undermine them. At the same time, some states are racing to protect and expand abortion access, recognizing that the Supreme
Court’s standard for abortion rights, established in 1973’s Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, is a floor, not a ceiling. Several states are
expected
to take action, following the record nine states that enacted proactive laws on abortion in 2019. These
proactive actions take several forms: protecting abortion rights by creating legal protections consistent with those established in Roe and prohibiting
state interference in reproductive choices; repealing unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods and excessive standards for
physical facilities; or improving availability and affordability by expanding who can provide abortion and by requiring abortion coverage or
directly funding it. Regardless of what happens at the Supreme Court this spring, states must continue to be proactive on abortion. A Supreme Court
decision that weakens abortion rights and returns decisions about abortion back to state lawmakers would make reforms
even more urgent—and would potentially give states more options than Congress to protect and bolster both abortion rights and abortion access.
 2NC – Link – Overrides Abortion
The legal precedent of dignity can be used to place restrictions on abortion – Germany
proves
Halliday 16. Samantha Halliday is an Associate Professor of Biolaw at Durham University and used to
be a professor of law at the University of Huddersfield and the University of Leeds, [“Protecting Human
Dignity: Reframing the Abortion Debate to Respect the Dignity of Choice and Life”, 2016, Contemporary
Issues in Law. 13, URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304957348_Protecting_Human_Dignity_Reframing_the_Abo
rtion_Debate_to_Respect_the_Dignity_of_Choice_and_Life Date Accessed: 6/20/20 ] RN

The construction of dignity as empowerment is subjective, prioritising individual values, rather than
seeking to establish a universal human dignity. However, as Deryck Beyleveld and Roger Brownsword
recognise, dignity can also operate to deny individual choice when constructed as constraint. The U.S.
Supreme Court adopted a very different interpretation of dignity in Gonzales v Carhart52 where it
upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Having provided an extremely graphic and emotive
description of how a so-called ‘partial birth’ abortion is performed, the majority of the Supreme Court
recognised that dignity is engaged in relation to the foetus’ life as well as the woman’s choices. Thus,
upholding the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act Kennedy J stated that it ‘expresses
respect for the dignity of human life.’53 Unfortunately, he failed to develop his analysis of dignity as life
and gave no explicit consideration to the dignity of the pregnant woman. Kennedy J emphasised the
need for a woman’s decision to abort to be fully informed, the purpose of the information being to
protect women from the seemingly inevitable regret that some women will feel after choosing to
undergo an abortion.54 However, as Reva Siegel argues, the suggestion that women should be
protected from making a decision that they will later regret is a very different view to the conception of
dignity as equality and autonomy set out in Casey.55 Given that the Act contains no exception
safeguarding the health of the woman, it is suggested that Kennedy’s understanding of dignity can at
best be characterised as one-sided. Moreover, the conclusion that the Act express-es respect for the
dignity of human life is somewhat surprising when one considers that the legislation prohibits a
particular method of procuring an abortion, rather than the termination of pregnancy itself, suggesting
that the respect expressed is extremely limited in nature. Indeed, given that the focus of the prohibition
is upon the method utilised to procure an abortion, the only constraint would appear to be upon
medical practice.

The German compromise: the protection of dignity, life and liberty interests in the regulation of abortion
Whilst the U.S. Supreme Court and the Hungarian Constitutional Court have primarily adopted a
conception of dignity focused upon choice and recognising a woman’s agency in relation to abortion, the
German Bundesverfassungsgericht linked the protection of human dignity to both the woman’s right to
self-determination and the foetal right to life, conceptualising dignity as both liberty (in the sense of
decisional autonomy promoted in Casey) and constraint, in so far as it requires the woman’s liberty
interests to be restrained in order to protect the foetus. The court has twice found abortion legislation
to be unconstitutional and thus invalid, in decisions handed down shortly after the U.S Supreme Court
decided Roe and Casey. 56 Despite the proximity in time, the German decisions differ significantly from
their U.S. counterparts, holding that the constitutional guarantee of human dignity, and the right to life,
apply to the foetus in and of itself.57 The right to life is guaranteed by Article 2 II section 1 GG,
protecting the physical-biological existence of human beings.58 Unlike the Irish Constitution59 the
German Constitution does not expressly state that the right to life applies to prenatal life, but the
legislative history of the Grundgesetz demonstrates that the legislature intended the right to life to
apply prior to birth60 and the judges in each of the abortion decisions were unanimous in holding that
the right to life is not limited to life extant, stating ‘The protection of human existence from state
interference would be incomplete if it did not include the preliminary stage of “completed life”, prenatal
life.’61 Indeed, as Rupp v Brünneck and Simon JJ point out in their dissenting opinion, the question is not
whether, but how the right applies to the foetus.62 Although the Bundesverfassungsgericht recognised
that the pregnant woman’s rights to life and bodily integrity, to personality and her dignity are engaged,
it held that she owes a duty to her foetus throughout pregnancy, a duty to continue the pregnancy to
full term.63 That being the case, her rights must be curtailed to the extent necessary to protect the
foetus, unless her choice to terminate the pregnancy can be justified. As the court stressed, in all but the
most serious situations a woman’s failure to continue the pregnancy will not be capable of justification
and thus must be categorised as unlawful.64 A fundamental difference in approach in the American and
German constitutional philosophies can be readily discerned in the abortion juris-prudence. The U.S.
Supreme Court recognised that the state had an interest in prenatal life and that it could (should it so
choose) intervene to protect that interest from the beginning of the third trimester (in Roe), or through-
out pregnancy provided that in doing so the state did not pose an undue burden upon the woman’s
right to elect a previability abortion (in Casey). By contrast, the Bundesverfassungsgericht held that the
foetus is protected by both the right to life and the constitutional guarantee of human dignity and that
the state is under a duty to take positive action to protect foetal life from implantation onwards. It
stated ‘The state’s duty to protect is compre-hensive. Self-evidently it does not only prohibit direct state
interference in the developing life, but also requires the state to take a stance protecting and promoting
this life, … above all, to protect it from unlawful interference from others.’65 Therefore, the
Bundesverfassungsgericht recognised that the state has an affirmative duty to protect and promote
foetal life, including protecting the foetus from the pregnant woman herself.66

Thus, two years after the US Supreme Court had emphasised the liberty of the individual and the limits
of state action infringing upon the exercise of that liberty in Casey, the German court stressed the
communitarian nature of rights, emphasising that pregnancy involves a ‘Zweiheit in Einheit’ (duality in
unity), rather than merely a pregnant woman and underlining the social and relational aspects of
pregnancy.67 Whilst the US Supreme Court found that the foetus is not a person within the meaning of
the constitution,68 the Bundesverfassungsgericht recognised that the right to life applies to prenatal
life, holding that the foetus is an independent legally protected value (Rechtsgut) that ‘does not develop
into a human being, but as a human being.’69 In seeking to reconcile the conflicting rights of the woman
and the duty to protect foetal life, the court attributed a pivotal role to the protection of human dignity,
holding in Abortion I that in weighing the conflicting constitutional values reference must be made to
their relationship with the protection of human dignity, the epicentre of the constitutional value
system.70 Nevertheless, the court adopted a very one-dimensional view of dignity in the first decision,
adopting the formulation of dignity as restraint by stressing that the protection of dignity requires the
protection of human life, and that such protection will out-weigh the woman’s right to self-
determination throughout the pregnancy.71 It failed to consider the impact of dignity on the weight to
be accorded to her right to self-determination. In Abortion II the Bundesverfassungsgericht emphasised
the link between human dignity and the consequent duty to protect foetal life,72 stressing that ‘where
human life exists, human dignity is accorded to it.’73 The court described the right to life ‘as the most
elemen-tary and inalienable right derived from human dignity,’74 and emphasised that ‘The duty to
protect prenatal life is based upon individual life, not just on human life in general. Compliance [with the
duty] is a fundamental condition of orderly cohabitation in the state.’75 The court’s finding that the
foetus benefits from the guarantee of human dignity remains controversial, not least because it failed to
explain why the existence of prenatal life will in and of itself will automatically engage the protection of
human dignity. As Horst Dreier argues ‘Life is the condition sine qua non not the sine per quam for the
applicability of Article 1 I GG.’76 Nevertheless, it is suggested that Jörn Ipsen is correct to argue that the
foetus is protected by the guaran-tee of human dignity operating as an objective fundamental
constitutional principle, rather than at a subjective level, with the foetus a designated holder of human
dignity.77 In this manner the foetus’ prospective dignity interest can be protected, without endowing
the foetus with rights.

The German constitution expressly recognises that the right to life is not absolute,78 but human dignity
is guaranteed as inviolable (unantastbar), it is an absolute value, the infringement of which cannot be
justified in any circumstance.79 If dignity is construed as life, it constitutes a trump card80 for those
seeking to prohibit abortion, but the termination of pregnancy per se is not necessarily contrary to
human dignity, rather in order to establish a breach of Article 1 I GG, it must be demonstrated that the
extinguishing of foetal life is contrary to human dignity in the context in which it takes place. For
example, gender-based abortion for the purpose of family bal-ancing rather than on medical grounds,
could be found to be contrary to human dignity, but it is the motivating factor, rather than the
termination of foetal life, that makes it so.81 It is submitted that in recognising the sym-biotic nature of
the relationship between the right to life and the guarantee of human dignity, the
Bundesverfassungsgericht underlined the significance of the right to life within the hierarchy of
fundamental rights and the need for restraint in abrogating that right,82 it also broadened the scope of
avail-able protection substantially, permitting itself significantly more leeway to determine that the
abortion legislation in question was unconstitutional.
 2NC – Internal – Modelled
Strong reproductive rights in the US are modelled globally
Now’s key---countries are setting up their own insurance systems---advocating
universal access to reproductive insurance is vital 
Lethia Bernard 18, Research and Policy Analyst at PAI, a global organization advancing the right to
affordable, quality contraception and reproductive health care for every woman, everywhere, 2/6/18,
“Part of the Same Equation: Universal Health Coverage and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights,”
https://pai.org/newsletters/part-equation-universal-health-coverage-sexual-reproductive-health-
rights/
SRH services = sexual and reproductive health 
many low-income
Yet, in most low-income countries, family planning is donor-dependent and heavily subsidized by users themselves. However, donor funding is insufficient and stagnant. At the same time,

countries are graduating to middle-income status and losing eligibility for donor
funds. As a result, public financing is necessary to ensure sustainability of sexual and
reproductive health and rights In response, many advocates have (SRHR) investments.  sexual and reproductive health

focused on domestic resource mobilization (DRM) from the perspective of creating budget lines and tracking associated allocations and expenditures at the national and subnational levels.
Fewer, however, have been engaged in DRM with respect to health financing strategies under the umbrella of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). Yet, not only are the principles behind these strategies consistent with the achievement of sexual and

A large part of UHC will

reproductive health and rights; they perhaps represent the next best opportunity to shore up funding for sexual and reproductive health in the current funding and political environment. 

involve establishing or reforming countries’ insurance schemes discussions will dictate . These

whether insurance systems are pro-poor, include SRH services in benefits packages, or pay for
certain or all portions of services . To ensure financial sustainability and equitable access, insurance schemes and respective packages of services must include SRH information and services including family

now is the time to advocate for their inclusion.

planning, safe abortion and post-abortion care, pregnancy-related services and STI prevention and treatment—and

This environment represents an opportunity for SRHR priorities that champions of SRH cannot
afford to miss Universal health coverage is gaining momentum at the global
.  The Opportunity

and national levels Many countries are embarking on large-

as one of the key health Sustainable Development Goals. therefore

scale policy reforms and restructuring their health system priorities and national
health financing strategies to achieve universal health coverage by, or near, the 2030 SDG target date. They are either

Benefits packages may or

proposing major reforms to the existing health insurance schemes or creating them for the first time with the specific goal of using them as a mechanism to achieve UHC.

may not include family planning and SRH services. Though the timeframe is 2030 achievement, these reforms take time to construct, implement, and yield results. That means

governments are defining the structure of insurance systems and benefits

packages that will implicate women’s access to family planning and SRH services
right now .

That sends a global signal against reproductive freedom 

Anushay Hossain 14, Bangladeshi journalist based in Washington, DC, writer for The New York
Times/Women In The World, Forbes, CNN, The Huffington Post, 7/1/14, “Could Hobby Lobby Affect
Women Around The World?,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/anushayhossain/2014/07/01/could-
hobby-lobby-affect-women-around-the-world/2/#277b9ac6cf03
America has a history of promoting comprehensive reproductive healthcare around the world, so why
are American women still fighting for birth control?
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
ruled 5-4 that "closely held corporations cannot be required to
provide contraception coverage for their employees."
In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court voted that privately
owned for-profit corporations, like Hobby Lobby
and Conestoga Woods, can refuse to cover birth control in their company's insurance plans because of
religious beliefs.
Despite the anti-contraception movement in the US being separate from the anti-abortion movement,
the Hobby Lobby ruling relates to both because it demonstrates how women's health and rights are
continuously compromised in the US.
Just last week, the Supreme Court voted against a law allowing abortion clinics to have a buffer zones. Yesterday the highest court in America
told women that our bodies do not belong to us.

But this
ruling is not just about American women. It has implications for women around the world mainly
because policies made in Washington impact the health and rights of women around the world.
The US is one of the largest donors of global health programs, and often what it promotes at home it advocates
for abroad as well, as we saw with abstinence only sex education that skyrocketed during the Bush-era in domestic and overseas
programs.

It is also not uncommon for the US to implement policies that would be ruled unconstitutional in the US in its foreign aid programs, one of the
best examples being the Global Gag Rule, a deeply partisan policy (Republican Presidents traditionally implement it, while Democratic
Presidents repeal it) which prohibits overseas non-profits that receive US funding from doing any kind of abortion related work.

Feminist writer, Soraya Chemaly states that the

court's decision on Hobby Lobby proves that patriarchy is alive and well
in one of the most powerful democracies in the world:
...The Court’s decision displays the profound depth of patriarchal norms that deny women autonomy
and the right to control our own reproduction—norms that privilege people’s “religious consciences” over women’s choices
about our own bodies, the welfare of our families, our financial security and our equal right to freedom from the imposition of our employers’
religious beliefs...SCOTUS’ decision is shameful for its segregation of women’s health issues and its denial that what should be valued as “closely
held” in our society is a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions.

If women's health and rights are being rolled back in America, it is just a matter of time before the
ripple effects are felt around the world. Worse, rulings like this could make its way into programs the US
implements abroad. In a nutshell, bad news for American women is bad news for all women .  How can the
US be considered a beacon for democracy, or even pretend to be, when women are still fighting for
contraceptives in 2014? What is the difference between the five men who voted in favor of denying women contraception coverage, and
the mullahs in the villages of Bangladesh who refuse women the same right? 
 2NC – Internal – Stops Overpop
Accessible family planning prevents global nuclear war and civilizational collapse from
population pressure 
Paul Ehrlich 3-24, President, Center for Conservation Biology, Bing Professor of Population Studies,
Stanford University, 3/24/18, quoted by Sputnik News, “Overconsumption, Inequity 'Lower Chances of
Avoiding Global Collapse' – Scholar,” https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201803241062865525-
overconsumption-inequity-global-collapse/
The collapse of civilization in the next few decades is imminent , and it could be triggered by a variety of factors, Paul
Ehrlich told Sputnik. 

"It could be caused by a nuclear war, droughts and floods leading to mass starvation, a bursting of the debt bubble, political
unrest from refugee flows or increasing economic inequity, trade wars, terrorism or synergizing combinations of these
and other factors," the researcher said. 

The main reasons behind all these negative predictions are, according to the scientist, overpopulation and overconsumption. He is
confident that these two factors will drive our civilization over the edge.  

"The basic problem is the wrecking of human life-support systems by growth in aggregate consumption — and that is
a product of growth in population size and growth in per capita consumption. Various forms of inequity — gender, racial,
religious could contribute by making it less likely that people will provide the cooperation required to give the chance of avoiding a collapse,"
the analyst argued. 

In Ehrlich's view, the situation has significantly worsened since he released a corresponding warning in his book "The Population Bomb" 50
years ago. 

"The population has doubled in size, climate disruption is now much more thoroughly understood and is already causing problems, there soon
will be more weight of plastics in the oceans than fish; hormone-mimicking synthetic chemicals are now toxifying earth from pole to pole and
are the likely cause of plunging sperm counts around the world; almost
half of wildlife has been exterminated in the
greatest mass extinction episode in the last 66 million years," the analyst said. 
According to him, the
chances of a global nuclear war wiping out civilization are now also "higher than at any time
during the Cold War except for the Cuban missile crisis." 
Although, there have been numerous warnings about the way humans are threatening life on earth, governments and the international
community have so far failed to reduce this threat, and Ehrlich believes that there are several reasons for this. 

Among them are "the lack of education in basic science, especially among economists and politicians, who think economic growth is the cure
for everything rather than what it is — the basic disease," the analyst said, adding that a key role is also being played by such negative traits if a
human character as "greed, stupidity and arrogance." 

Answering the question about which measures he considers essential to change the situation for the better, the scientist
said that, among other things, it's important to "supply everyone with modern contraception and backup abortion,"
"give women equal rights and opportunities with men," "end racial and religious discrimination so that all people are free to help solve the
human dilemmas" and "redistribute wealth." number of sex workers.

Accessible family planning’s key to avert irreversible warming tipping points---benefits

are short-term and huge 
John Guillebaud 16, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health at University
College London, 5/20/16, “Voluntary family planning to minimise and mitigate climate change,” BMJ,
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2102
Simply put, climate change is caused by excessive production of greenhouse gases. As highlighted by the late Professor Tony
McMichael, the “cause(s) of the causes” should not be overlooked .1 With climate change already close to an
irreversible tipping point, urgent action is needed to reduce not only our mean (carbon) footprints but
also the “number of feet”—that is, the growing population either already creating large footprints or
aspiring to do so. Wise and compassionate promotion of contraceptive care and education in a rights based, culturally
appropriate framework offers a cost effective strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. This article outlines the
evidence for voluntary accessible family planning as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
mitigate climate change.
What is the relation between population and environmental impact?

During 1971-72, Ehrlich and Holdren identified three factors that create humanity’s environmental (including climatic) impact, related by a
simple equation2:

Environmental impact, I =P×A×T

in which A is affluence (material consumption and the concomitant “effluence” of pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2) per person); T is
technology impact per person (in which fossil fuels measure more highly than solar based energy); and P is population (the number of people).

Population’s effect on the other two factors is multiplicative. Reducing P can reduce environmental
impact if the other factors are constant. In fig 1⇓, for example, fewer people requiring food would manifestly
reduce the startling 30% of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and meat production combined
(including CO2 from deforestation, methane from livestock, and nitrous oxide from fertilisers).3 That said, other contributory factors, including
the worldwide trend towards higher meat consumption, must also be reversed.

Population trends

Since 1850, substantial lowering of death rates, first through public health and later through antibiotics, along with slow falls in birth rates, have
led to a global population of more than 7400 million people by June 2016, a sevenfold increase.

The total fertility rate is the projected mean number of children born to an average woman in her lifetime on current demographic assumptions
or, in shorthand, the “average family size.” Given world average mortality, countries achieving total fertility rates of 2.1 have replacement
fertility, yet their populations continue to increase for roughly 60 years because of demographic momentum (see below). Since the mid-20th
century the world’s mean fertility rate has reduced from 5.2 to 2.5, and 46% of people live where the mean family size is equal to or below
parental replacement fertility.4 In 2013 an influential film by Hans Rosling, Don’t Panic—The Facts About Population,5 suggested that the
population problem was essentially solved.

However, there is some “bad news.” Firstly, fertility patterns vary by country: 45% of the world lives in areas where total fertility rates range
from 2.1 to 5, and 9% where they exceed 5. In the 48 countries designated by the United Nations as least developed, population is projected to
triple by 2100.4 In much of sub-Saharan Africa fertility reduction has stalled.6 7 The UN’s latest median world population projection of 11.2
billion by 2100 is predicated on continuing reductions in fertility rate; without them, the constant fertility variant projects to roughly 28 billion
by 2100.3

A second problem is “inexorable demographic momentum” as a result of the population “bulge” of young people who were born
when fertility rates were higher and are yet to start their families. That phrase was used in a widely publicised scenario based report
Human Population Reduction is not a Quick Fix for Environmental Problems .8 However, the scenarios have
been criticised for ignoring country-to-country variability and hence understating the “enormous social and economic
benefits that family planning adopting nations have experienced in one generation compared with their non-
adopting neighbours”—that is, the benefits are not long delayed.9 10
Voluntary family planning omitted in climate change coverage

As already noted, three factors affect environmental impact, yetmost climate change discussions focus only on
technology and consumption. Even if unremitting population growth is recognised (as, for example, in the Living Planet
Report by the World Wide Fund for Nature with the Global Footprint Network)11 it is usually treated as a “given,” something to be
measured and (hopefully) adapted to, not as something that is sensitive to policy intervention. This is analogous
to monitoring a bucket that is filled from a running tap and, when it’s close to overflowing, discussing
complex measures to make the only available bucket larger, rather than turning off the tap . Doctors can
have an important role in putting family planning on to the agenda (box 1).
 2NC – Impact

Unchecked warming causes extinction 

Robert A. Schultz 16, retired Professor and Chair of Computer Information Systems at Woodbury
University, 2016, “Modern Technology and Human Extinction,”
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2016/InSITE16p131-145Schultz2307.pdf
There is consensus that there is a relatively short window to reduce carbon emissions before drastic
effects occur. Recent credible projections of the result of lack of rapid drastic action is an average
temperature increase of about 10o F by 2050. This change alone will be incredibly disruptive to all life, but will also
cause great weather and climate change. For comparison purposes, a 10 degree (Fahrenheit) decrease was enough to cause an ice layer 4000
feet thick over Wisconsin (Co2gether, 2012). Recently relevant information has surfaced about a massive previous extinction. This is the
Permian extinction, which happened 252 million years ago, during which 95% of all species on earth, both terrestrial and aquatic, vanished. The
ocean temperature after almost all life had disappeared was 15 degrees (Fahrenheit) above current ocean temperatures.

Recent information about the Permian extinction indicates it was caused by a rapid increase in land and ocean
temperatures, caused by the sudden appearance of stupendous amounts of carbon in the form of greenhouse gases (Kolbert, 2014, pp.
102-144). The origin of the carbon in these enormous quantities is not yet known, but one possibility is the sudden release of
methane gases stored in permafrost. This is also a possibility in our current situation. If so, extinction
would be a natural side effect of human processes. There is also a real but smaller possibility of what is called “runaway
greenhouse,” in which the earth’s temperature becomes like Venus’ surface temperature of 800o

The threat of extinction here is not entirely sudden. The threat is, if anything, worse. Changes in the
atmosphere--mainly increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere-- can start processes that can’t be
reversed but which take long periods of time to manifest . “Runaway greenhouse” may be the worst. Once again,
suggestions of technological solutions to this situation should be treated with some skepticism. These proposals are often made by
technophiles ignoring all the evidence that technology is very much subject to unanticipated side effects and unanticipated failures. What has
happened concerning the depletion of the ozone layer should be a clear warning against the facile uses of technology through geoengineering
to alter the makeup of the entire planet and its atmosphere.

The complicating factor in assessing extinction likelihood from climate change is corporations, especially
American fossil fuel corporations such as Exxon-Mobil and Shell. Through their contributions, they have been able to delay
legislation ameliorating global warming and climate change. As mentioned before, recently released papers from Exxon-Mobil
show that the corporation did accept the scientific findings about global warming and climate change. But they concluded that maintaining
their profits was more important than acting to ameliorate climate change.

Since it is not a matter of getting corporations to appreciate scientific facts, the chances of extinction
from climate change are good. To ameliorate climate change, it is important to leave a high percentage of
fossil fuel reserves in the ground. But this is exactly what a profit-seeking fossil fuel corporation cannot do. One can still hope that
because fossil fuel corporations are made up of individuals, increasingly bad consequences of global warming and climate change will change
their minds about profits. But because of the lag in effects, this mind change will probably be too late. So I conclude we will probably
see something like the effects of the Permian extinction perhaps some time around 2050. (The Permian extinction
was 95% extinction of all species.) This assumes the release of methane from the arctic will take place around then.

Causes great power war and fractures the international order 

Bruce D. Jones 17, vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at Brookings and a senior
fellow in the Institution's Project on International Order; and Stephen John Stedman, Fall 2017, “Civil
Wars & the Post–Cold War International Order,” Daedalus, Vol. 146, No. 4, p. 33-44
The effects of civil wars on international orders also differ across historical eras. Civil
wars may be fought over principles that
undermine the norms and rules that undergird an international order. Civil wars may tempt intervention
by great powers, who must learn prudence lest their involvement lead to direct military
confrontation. The spillover of civil wars can ripple across borders and undermine regional balances of
power. When those regions are of great-power interest, the containment of civil wars becomes an
imperative for international order.
Much has been asserted about the relationship between civil war and the post–Cold War international order. During the last twenty-five years,
pundits have repeatedly argued that the mere occurrence of particular wars, such as Somalia and Bosnia in the 1990s or Libya and Syria more
recently, prove that international order is weak and tenuous. Civil wars have played an outsized role in a popular narrative of international
disorder. According to this narrative, civil violence, terrorism, failed states, and the number of refugees are at unprecedentedly high levels. The
world is falling apart, most people are worse off than they were thirty years ago, and globalization is to blame.

By almost every measure, this narrative is empirically incorrect. Over the last thirty years, there has been more creation of wealth and a greater
reduction of poverty, disease, and food insecurity than in all of previous history.1 During the same period, the numbers and lethality of wars
have decreased.2 The success of the post–Cold War era in managing civil wars–bringing multiple wars to an end and ameliorating several
others–has contributed to a more peaceful world. Great-power confrontations have been few and great-power war a distant memory. As
measured by increased trade and reductions of arms expenditures as a percentage of gdp, international cooperation has risen to
unprecedented levels.3 Indeed, international cooperation has been a fundamental characteristic of the international order since the collapse of
the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, the post–Cold War international order is currently under substantial pressure, and in some areas,
progress has reversed. The Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine signals a return to a militaristic approach to its border with
Eastern Europe, while China's aggressive policies in the South China Sea promise that its relations with its neighbors will be tense and
dangerous. And after a fifteen-year historic reduction in the numbers of civil wars, there has been a recent, major spike, mostly centered in the
Middle East. Russian intervention in Syria and Saudi Arabian intervention in Yemen, and their indiscriminate use of force, run counter to the
way the United Nations and its member states have managed civil wars over the past twenty-five years. The paralysis[ stasis]
of the UN
Security Council in responding to the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria conjures up memories of the Cold War,
when proxy competition was the predominant response to civil wars.
 2NC – Impact – D Rule
It’s a D-Rule – outweighs the aff
Singh 17 [Sejal Singh is a law student and columnist at Feministing, writing about educational
equity, labor, and reproductive justice. “BERNIE’S MEDICARE-FOR-ALL PLAN MUST
INCLUDE ABORTION COVERAGE,” Feministing, 8/2/17,
http://feministing.com/2017/08/02/bernies-medicare-for-all-plan-must-include-
abortion-coverage/ Accessed 10/26/17]TW
Some Medicare-for-All advocates may want to avoid a fight over abortion , to make passing
single-payer a little bit easier. I get that: it’s a moral monstrosity that millions of people are
uninsured in the richest country on Earth. But abortion access is non-negotiable; without
it, women and people with uteruses can’t control our economic futures, our health
care outcomes, or even our own bodies.

The right to abortion is critical for women’s rights more broadly—it’s a decision rule
Valenti, 14 – founder of Feministing (Jessica Valenti, 5/6/14, “There is absolutely no reason
to restrict women's options for abortion access,”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/reason-restrict-womens-
options-abortion)  
I think abortion
should be legal without any restrictions – no parental consent laws, no mandated ultrasounds,
no waiting periods, no bans on late term abortions and no bans on federal funding for abortion. I also believe people
should be able to
become parents when they want, how they want and without interference from the government .
(If you think restrictions on abortion and restrictions on parenthood are unrelated, you are wrong.) If that were the law of the land, it would also mean
an end to rape and incest exceptions – because we wouldn't need them. Women wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to prove that their abortion is of the
"acceptable" variety. We wouldn't (and shouldn't) have to pretend that women who are forced into sex are somehow more deserving of medical care
than women who chose to have sex. We could rid ourselves of the hierarchy of "good" and "bad" abortions. The
decision to have an
abortion is personal and complicated, and any legislation that seeks to control such
decisions is based on an anti-choice ideology that thinks very little of women. It
assumes that women, if not kept in check by the government, are not to be trusted
to make good decisions about their bodies and families. Particularly when it comes to later term
abortions, there is a myth that women are so evil, misguided or stupid that they go seven months into a pregnancy before deciding willy-nilly to end it.
This is simply not true. (And yes, I wrote about the complicated moral feelings I have about later abortions – but those feelings don’t stop me from
knowing that women need access to abortion at different stages in a pregnancy.) While I don't think we need to make abortion "rare" – saying as much
only reinforces the stigma against the procedure – I do believe that part of ending restrictions on abortion is making birth control widely available,
cheap, covered by insurance and free for those who don’t have insurance. I also think ending legal limitations on abortion would mean women would
get the care they need sooner, producing less later abortions. The truth is that America only started to care about abortion
for reasons of sexism and racism. Abortion was legal until the late 1800s, when concern over
increased calls for women's suffrage and worry about immigrants' increasing birth rates sparked
a movement to legislate the procedure and to get more white Protestant women procreating.
Just as making abortion illegal hurt women actively and tangibly – before Roe as many as
5,000 women a year died every year from unsafe abortions – restricted access to and
public policy limiting abortion do the same. At the end of the day, women's bodily integrity must trump
politics. My belief that there should be no abortion restrictions is about fundamentally trusting women – trusting their choices, trusting them with
their own bodies and trusting that they know what is best for them and their families.

Reproductive choice gives women power against patriarchal

institutions – the aff kills female autonomy
Arthur 2012
(“Abortion: The Ultimate Insult to Male Authority,” by Joyce Arthur, March 19, 2012, http://nomas.org/abortion-the-ultimate-
insult-to-male-authority/)
In ancient human societies, the obvious and most practical way for men to ensure that they invested only in their own children was to dictate and
Throughout patriarchal history, society has guaranteed men’s
restrict women’s sexual behavior.
paternity by controlling women’s reproductive capacity . Here’s a list of some common ways this
happened, and still happens today in various countries: mutilating girl’s genitals to reduce sexual desire and ability later in life. imposing premarital
virginity. expecting women to be chaste, modest, submissive, and asexual (while men can be adventurous – the classic double standard). covering up
women with veils and burkas so they won’t tempt men. arranging marriages. implementing dowry systems (which incidentally, leads to sex selection of
boy babies over girl babies). requiring absolute fidelity from wives. punishing female adultery harshly. committing “honor killings” of women (e.g., if
they marry without permission). raping women to dishonor their families. mass rape in war as a way to humiliate the enemy. forcing women to marry
their rapists (or whoever gets them pregnant). confining women in their houses and chaperoning them in public . teaching abstinence-only education.
making contraception hard to access. making abortion illegal and unsafe. treating women as chattel, the property of men
(with harems the ultimate example). keeping women disadvantaged and powerless, by denying them education, preventing them from working outside
the home or participating in politics, paying them lower wages, and denying them equality. Let me elaborate a bit on a couple of these examples. The
idea of rape as a crime against women is relatively new. It was only in 1993 that the United Nations finally designated rape as a war crime. That’s
because under patriarchy, rape in war is used as a way to dishonor and vanquish the (male) enemy. Marital rape only recently became a crime in
western countries, because it was a wife’s duty to submit to her husband and bear his children. Rape in general is an opportunity for the rapist to father
a child and thereby establish his right to paternity by out-competing other men. According to patriarchy, a woman’s consent to sex or pregnancy is
irrelevant, because the overriding concern is that men need to reproduce and ensure it’s their children being produced. That’s why it’s acceptable to
rape your enemy’s women, or any woman that doesn’t “belong” to you, and of course your own wife, but it’s never OK for the enemy to rape your wife
(or daughter). The fact that rape victims are often treated with contempt and disgrace, sometimes even charged with adultery, or murdered or exiled by
their own families, is further proof that women’s consent (or lack of) is irrelevant. Under patriarchy, rape cannot be a crime against women, who are
In the abortion
chattel – instead, rape is a crime against family honour, male ownership, and the male assurance of paternity.
debate, most anti-abortionists allow exceptions for rape and incest. This makes no sense if all
life is sacred, but it fits the male paternity theory perfectly because these pregnancies
represent unauthorized paternity. Likewise, an important justification for allowing abortions to protect the life or health of
the woman is to preserve her ability to bear future babies and look after her existing ones. Anti-abortion laws are
patriarchal and have more to do with promoting rightful paternity than with
protecting the woman, or fetuses in general. The traditional patriarchal systems that control women’s sexuality
and reproduction are still widely protected today by laws, policies, customs, cultures, religions, and even by most individual men and women. By
definition, those who enforce these right-wing, restrictive
norms are opposed to a woman’s right to
autonomy – the right to control her own body and her fertility. It’s only in the last 50 years or so
that women, at least in the western world, have really achieved the means to control their own fertility with legal and accessible contraception and
abortion. Although women have always taken the initiative to control their reproduction, it’s largely been clandestine, with often tragic results. Today,
for the first time in history, it’s official and it’s public that women no longer need to be slaves to their biology. Unfortunately, the very idea
of allowing women to control their own fertility is a frightening development for a lot of people. Because it
really gives women true power over paternity – they can decide, on their own, which man should father their child, and
which won’t. They can decide when to have children, or whether they want any at all. And they can decide to abort any particular pregnancy. Men have
lost control over women because they’ve lost control over paternity. That’s why we see such a backlash by right-wing governments and groups today
against pre-marital sex by women, contraception, and especially abortion. Abortion is the flashpoint in this war, because the
patriarchal
right-wing can’t stand the thought of women having the power to abort men’s
babies – the ones put there by men’s actions, by men’s seed. A woman deciding to have an abortion is the
ultimate insult to male authority.

The patriarchy normalizes violence and turns the case— leads to

environmental destruction, prolif, war, and structural violence
Warren and Cady 94 —Karen Warren, Professor of Gender Studies at Macalester
College, Chair of the Philosophy Department at Macalester College, Ph.D. in Philosophy from
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and Duane Cady is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus
at Hamline University, PhD in Philosophy from Brown University, 1994 (“Feminism and Peace:
Seeing Connections,” Hypatia, Vol. 9, No. 2, Accessible Online via Subscribing Institution to
JSTOR, Accessed On 8-21-15) 
Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the unmanageability, (d),
which results. For example, in
the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be
raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-
masochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within
patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory
farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and
sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to "rape the earth, ”that it is”
man’s God-given right" to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only
instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for "progress."
And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose
dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of
nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current" unmanageability" of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d), is
then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender identified
beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included
among these real-life consequences are precisely those
concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental destruction, and violence
toward women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking . In
fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors-the symptoms of dysfunctionality that one can truly see that and how patriarchy
serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this "unmanageability" can be seen for what it is-as
a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.'1 The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and
logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature (see Russell 1989, 2). Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for
instance, argues that "militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill
needs of such a system. Acknowledging
the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism
is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54).
Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer
meaning:
Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national
and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued,
will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the
conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts. 

Patriarchy is the root cause of war

CHRIST 13, CAROL P.  teaches in the Women’s Spirituality program at CIIS and through
Ariadne Institute offers life-transforming Goddess Pilgrimages to Crete, March 4, 20 13,
“Patriarchy As An Integral System of Male Dominance Created at the Intersection of the Control
of Women, Private Property, and War, Part 3”, Feminism and Religion,
http://feminismandreligion.com/2013/03/04/patriarchy-as-an-integral-system-of-male-
dominance-created-at-the-intersection-of-the-control-of-women-private-property-and-war-
part-3/
The model of patriarchy I have proposed argues that the control of female sexuality is fundamental to the patriarchal system. This
explains why there is so much controversy about the “simple matter” of access to birth control and abortion in the US today. It also
explains why so much vicious anger is directed at single mothers by politicians and commentators. Any woman who dares
to control her own sexuality is questioning the foundations of the patriarchal system. Women’s
right to control our bodies and our sexuality alone is not enough to end the system of male
domination. But the right of women to control our sexuality – and yes to have sex whenever and with whomever we please – is
the beginning of the end of the patriarchal system. Issues concerning sexuality are sometimes dismissed as
“soft” or as only part of the “culture wars.” The definition of patriarchy as an integral system
shows that sexual matters are “integrally” related to the “hard” “social” and “economic” issues
that are sometimes viewed as more real or important than cultural issues. The model of
patriarchy as an integral system enables us to see that in order to end male domination we must
also end war–and violence, rape, conquest, exploitation, and slavery which are sanctioned as
part of war. In societies where the violent behaviors of warriors are celebrated and in which
soldiers who have been trained in the methods of violence come home, it is unlikely that anyone can
succeed in eradicating rape and violence against women. In the US military the rape of women soldiers by other
soldiers is common, and the military is covering it up. This needs to stop and the men who rape in the military
must be punished. However, the fact that rape has been permitted as the spoils of war from the
inception of war up to the present day is rarely considered as one of the reasons for the rape of
women in the military. Can justice for raped women be achieved in an institution that has always permitted and sometimes
encouraged rape? And even if rape can be stopped within the military, will soldiers still continue to rape the women of the “the
enemy” and bring learned violent behaviors with them when they come home? Do we have to end war to end violence against
women? If we wish to end patriarchy, we must also address the unequal distribution of wealth inherent in
the notion of “private” property, much of it the “spoils” of war, which led to the concept of
patriarchal inheritance, which in turn required the control of female sexuality . It is important that the
model of communal land ownership in prepatriarchal societies and the principle of sharing wealth through gift-giving systems
become more widely known. Knowledge is power. Knowledge of more communal alternatives exposes the injustices in systems of
unrestrained accumulation of private property in the hands of powerful individuals. While we may not be able to return to a system
of communal land ownership any time soon, we can support universal health care, progressive tax systems that redistribute
accumulated wealth, and social safety nets for the poor and the vulnerable. When we recognize that the desire to pass
property on to heirs is one of the roots of the patriarchal system, we might also become more
sympathetic to serious reform of the inheritance system. If individuals were only allowed to leave a set amount
to each child and none to family-controlled charities, there would be less incentive to accumulate large amounts of wealth in the first
place. Let us not kid ourselves, the “right” of individuals (most of them male) to accumulate vast
wealth and to pass it on to heirs is at the root of the right-wing insistence that taxes on the rich
not be raised and tax loopholes not be closed. If we begin to see the injustices involved in acquiring people and
property as the spoils of war, we might also become more sympathetic to the idea of paying reparations
to indigenous peoples and to people whose ancestors were enslaved. This is not a matter of punishing some
for sins committed by others. Are those whose ancestors lived in poverty in the tenements of New York and rose from there to the
middle class any less the beneficiaries of the injustices on which the American system was built than those whose ancestors held
slaves or took land from the Indians? We could fund reparations with the money that wealthy individuals would no longer be
allowed to pass on to their heirs. We might even begin to view these measures–and others like them–as
neither unjust nor even as extraordinary, but simply as what is required to repair the injustices
inherent in the patriarchal system of private property.