The Civic Lineage Regime of the Progressive Era & Today's Constitutional Wars

• In Event: Critical Perspectives on Civil Rights & Citizenship

Abstract

In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health (2022), this paper analyzes how the Progressive Era continues to serve as an important ideological touchstone for ongoing constitutional debates about reproductive rights and civic equality for women today. As we document, for many conservatives, the fight over abortion is a major part of what they see as the most important battle in contemporary American constitutional politics: namely, whether the nation will return to the “traditional” or “conservative” Constitution as opposed to fulfilling egalitarian conceptions of “living constitutionalism” that trace to Progressive reformers. Indeed, many opponents of abortion and “Progressive constitutionalism,” including Justice Clarence Thomas, link abortion to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century as a part of disparaging progressive reform goals. This conservative critique raises several key questions. What were the dominant conceptions of women’s equal citizenship among Progressive reformers? In what ways did they support eugenics? And what are the implications of this for achieving equitable citizenship in the realm of reproductive policy and law today? In sum, how valid is this conservative contention?

To answer, this paper builds upon Elspeth Wilson’s “civic lineage regimes” theory, which highlights the sets of laws, policies, and social practices that regulate reproduction and the birth of citizens. We focus on the rise of a dominant but contested civic lineage regime during the Progressive Era and that regime’s relationship to several prominent conceptions of women’s civic status. Our study provides a framework to better understand past reformers’ links to eugenics and, by extension, shows that current repeals of abortion rights are a far cry from repudiation of eugenics. They instead perpetuate its worst element: the belief that governments should control women’s reproductive fate in disregard of their liberty, civic equality, or bodily integrity.

Authors

• Elspeth Wilson, Franklin & Marshall College

• Rogers M. Smith, University of Pennsylvania