The methods of research in political science include reading from primary and secondary sources on theories and potential applications of theories. It also includes reading cases that deal with the political issues that are being examined. Being a field that deals heavily with precedents (for example, when a case gets decided upon), it will be important to examine those precedents in recent history as well.

I propose to examine Supreme Court decisions and the state policies they decide on that deal with prohibiting reproductive rights. In doing so, I hope to understand the basis in which the Supreme Court find the policies constitutional. While the Courts are right in determining that the policies are in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment (which disallows any discrimination in the application of the laws by the states), the policies drawn up by the states to hinder women from exercising their reproductive rights are in themselves unconstitutional and should be struck down as such.

In both the cases of Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977), and Poelker v. Doe, 432 U.S. 519 (1977), the majority held that a state is allowed to exclude funding for and prohibit non-therapeutic abortion procedures within their Medicaid programs and hospitals. The reasoning of the Court is that such exclusions and prohibitions do not ban women from obtaining abortions; rather they just show encouragement from the state for an alternative option.

In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) however, state-sanctioned prayer in a public school was determined to be “pervasive, to the point of creating state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise…” When the state decides to pick an option, it openly shows preference to that option over other options by default. What results is a form of peer pressure for the people exposed to such state sanctions. Moreover, “this pressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion,” and thus was ruled to be unconstitutional by the majority.

In my study, I first want to set out on proving that state policies to deny women any form of contraception is unconstitutional based on the decision made in Lee v. Weisman (1992). I believe this comparison to be relevant because both deal with the state choosing alternative methods, and as a result shunning a legally protected activity. The sense of state coercion is just as strong in the cases dealing with reproductive rights as they are with freedom of religion. In a way, the sense of state coercion is even stronger in the policies regarding reproductive rights; it cannot pretend it has respect for those who seek abortion when it has very clearly banned the activity from being practiced in its institutions, as well as explicitly excluded it from their programs.

A second part of my study will by tying the first part of my research back to Marxist Feminist theory. I will argue that the struggle for gender equality is inherently a class struggle, and state policies that stifle a whole class of its citizens cannot be in any way constitutional. I will also reaffirm the position that reproduction is a form of labor. This is relevant because it will force a closer examination of the constitutionality of laws and policies that ban any form of reproductive rights, and through the comparison with the Marxian worker, will demonstrate exactly how the state prevents gender equality by controlling women’s labor. Within the comparison to the Marxian worker, I will also analyze the consequences that women suffer when they are deprived of their reproductive (labor) rights. For certain forms of deprivation that carry with them significant economic consequences, such as the exclusion of state funding for abortions, I will need to research demographic data. The data will help me better understand the impact it has on women who cannot afford to have an abortion without financial help from the state due to their economic situation.

Counter-arguments made against my claim that I will address will also be in two parts. First there is of course the majority opinions of the Courts that I have decided to argue against. I will have to address each part of them with the decision made in Lee v. Weisman (1992). I will also research related cases that support my claim. Equally as important, I will use dissents written by the Supreme Court justices that disagreed with the majority as another way to support my argument. Other counter-arguments that I will be dealing with is the choice of Marxist Feminism as opposed to other branches under feminism. To do so, I will look into the history of feminism and discuss why I believe the Marxist tradition holds best in the struggle for gender equality. I will also discuss which areas some branches of feminism has failed to cover, areas which Marxist Feminism has adequately addressed.