SCOTUS men should recuse themselves on abortion
By Cody Andrus
Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in American society, and the men on the U.S. Supreme Court should recuse themselves from ruling on such matters. The reason is clear: men do not experience pregnancy, nor do they carry the physical and emotional burdens that come with it. By weighing in on abortion, male justices impose judgments on experiences they cannot personally relate to, raising questions about the fairness and impartiality of their decisions.
Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, has long been a vocal opponent of abortion rights, contributing to the recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v. Wade. His influence in reshaping abortion law raises ethical concerns about whether male justices should decide on matters that disproportionately affect women. Legal scholar Reva Siegel highlights this imbalance, stating, “When men dictate abortion law, they sideline the voices and lived experiences of women, reinforcing patriarchal control over women's bodies."
Additionally, the legitimacy of the Court itself could be questioned if men continue to play a dominant role in shaping reproductive rights. Public trust in the judicial system is critical to maintaining democracy, and that trust can erode when a lack of representation or understanding influences rulings on deeply personal issues. In a New York Times editorial, writer Linda Greenhouse argued that “male justices deciding abortion questions magnify the Court’s credibility problem, especially as gender equity becomes more central to public discourse."
Recusal is not without precedent. Justices often recuse themselves from cases where they have conflicts of interest or personal biases that could compromise impartiality. If male justices were to recuse themselves from abortion-related cases, it would send a powerful message that the Court respects the unique lived experiences of women. It would also help restore faith in the judiciary's ability to act fairly on deeply divisive issues.
Legal experts like Katherine Franke suggest that “a failure to recognize the unique impacts of abortion restrictions on women perpetuates gender inequality under the law” (Franke, 2021). This underscores why male justices should recuse themselves: their involvement not only perpetuates unequal power dynamics but also threatens the Court’s legitimacy as a neutral arbiter.
Siegel, 2020, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), Greenhouse, 2022, Franke, 2021, New York Times editorial, Clarence Thomas.
