On Punishing Women, Part 1

Once you understand punishment as operant conditioning, the anti-rights movement’s gender-specific forms of punishing women become evident.

*A note on language: In the context of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, anti-rights attitudes regarding punishment are deeply gendered, influenced by underlying sexism and intertwined with traditionalist gender role beliefs: all persons who have the potential for pregnancy are viewed as woman, regardless of their gender, and as such are to be punished as woman. Because these gendered ideas about woman are central to the subject of anti-rights attitudes toward punishment in regards to pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, I use the words women/woman in the discussion below to refer to all pregnant and potentially pregnant people to adequately emphasize the gendered nature of anti-rights punishment.

Read Part II

---

What is punishment? What does it mean to punish someone? What does that look like, in all its forms?

As recently discussed, anti-reproductive-rights groups support punishing women. Unfortunately, many fail to recognize the gender-specific ways that women are already being punished within the context of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes.

For example, for millennia, rape has been used to punish women. Today, the anti-rights movement punishes women through forced vaginal penetration.

Once you understand punishment as operant conditioning, the anti-reproductive-rights movement’s gender-specific forms of punishing women become evident.

---

Punishable Offences

“The power to punish, to secure obedience to the law or moral order by means of punishment, is one of the most influential social forces for obtaining conformity in human societies.”¹ But what, exactly, are women's punishable “offenses” according to the anti-reproductive-rights mindset?

Punishable offences can be broken down into two broad categories: (1) the desecration of the sacred object, and (2) the failure to conform to the rigid gender role expectations of ultra-sacrificial motherhood.

Desecration of the Sacred Object

The desire to punish “rests in part on the shared emotional reactions caused by the ‘desecration’ of what is perceived as sacred,”² and “[i]ndividuals who express a strong commitment to punishment are more likely to oppose abortion and also to favor capital punishment.”³

Both scholars and religious leaders have observed that anti-abortionism centers around the image of the fetus as a sacred, fetishized object,⁴⁵⁶ “attention to which resembles the fascination of the primitive sacred for a fetish or holy relic.”⁷ They therefore “attribute to it” their own “cultural or group interests.”⁸

As a sacred object, a holy relic, that represents a group's cultural interests, the fetus is more than a human person and thus not bridled by the common law principles protecting the rights and dignity of others. It commands greater respect. Greater protection. Greater privileges. Greater power.

“Being sacred, such objects are treated with great reverence. Violation of the sacredness of these objects is often the occasion for collective violence against the transgressor.”⁹ “Sacred objects have tremendous power to bind people together in solidarity, but they also bind people together to lynch anyone who violates the sacredness of these sites/objects. The fetus occupies exactly this position in the collective dynamics of anti-abortion discourse.”¹⁰

“In the collective dynamics of the anti-abortion movement, this is precisely what we see—a community gathering around a sacred object, upholding it as more worthy—because of its innocence—than the mother who carries it, and weeping over its desecration by the sinful abortionist and the woman who gets the abortion.”¹¹

Gender Role Non-conformity

Benevolent sexism “is the chosen method of behavioral control among members of [a] dominant group.”¹²

Benevolent sexism “is a pernicious form of sexism”¹³ that “encompasses subjectively positive (for the sexist) attitudes toward women in traditional roles: protective paternalism, idealization of women, and desire for intimate relations.”¹⁴ It “reveres and offers protection to gender-conforming women who have restricted societal status and power (e.g., homemakers and mothers).”¹⁵ Benevolent sexism is associated with both “negative attitudes toward women who have premarital sex”¹⁶ and “victim blaming in cases of acquaintance rape.”¹⁷

The benevolent sexist “sees[] abortion, under any circumstance, as a negation of [] gender roles;”¹⁸ hence benevolent sexism drives opposition to therapeutic/life-saving abortions.¹⁹

Because the anti-reproductive-rights movement is engendered by benevolent sexism,²⁰ the movement “demands that women be chaste, regardless of the circumstances” and “adhere to traditional gender roles (e.g., the sacrificial/communal woman, the revered role of motherhood).”²¹ “In the anti-abortion activists’ essentialised understanding of gender roles, motherhood is not just a desirable goal, but all women’s lives should be oriented around motherhood, including women without children who can perform ‘mothering roles’ in a different way.”²² Within this conceptualization of women, actions that deviate from rigid, traditionalist gender roles, such as choosing to have an abortion, are viewed as “the rejection of women’s sacred role.”²³

The ultra-sacrificial mother “is expected to be altruistic about difficulties of birth that could take her life, or to weather the mental and physical impacts of a pregnancy stemming from sexual assault. Women who turn away from this gender role are thus seen as ‘shunning the very roles and responsibilities that give rise to men’s adoration.’”²⁴

The anti-reproductive-rights movement demands that women submit themselves to the sacred fetus and treat it with the same reverence afforded to a holy relic. When women do not do this, “we find a community gathering around a sacred object to justify persecution”²⁵ in an “attempt to to make a virtue out of women’s subordination.”²⁶ The woman is thus “a ready-made sacrificial victim. We can mete out her punishment through denial of the abortion she seeks; she must bear her child 'in travail.’”²⁷

In sum: Opponents of reproductive rights believe women should strictly conform to the rigid gender roles of ultra-sacrificial motherhood, that abortion results in the desecration of a sacred object, and that transgressions should be punished in some way, shape, or form. They thereby employ positive and negative punishments to decrease the recurrence or frequency of the behaviors they find undesirable.

---

What is Punishment?

Most people think of punishment as retribution, but putitive retribution is not the only theory of punishment. (We'll discuss retributive justice in Part II of this series on punishment.) In today's article (Part I), we will focus strictly on punishment as defined within the fields of psychology and behaviorism.

Operant conditioning, developed by psychologist and behaviorist B.F. Skinner, “is a learning process that modifies behavior through reinforcement and punishment.”²⁸ Discussing punishment in operant conditioning, involves several everyday words that are here used in a specialized manner.²⁹ These words are positive, negative, and punishment.

Punishment

Punishment is the introduction (additon) or removal (subtraction) of a stimulus or consequence in order to decrease (⬊) the likelihood that an undesired 👎 behavior reocurs.

(You punish behaviors that you do not want repeated.)

There are two types of punishment: positive (➕) and negative (➖). Importantly, “[i]n operant conditioning, positive and negative do not mean good and bad. Instead, positive means you are adding something, and negative means you are taking something away.”³⁰

Positive and Negative Punishment

Positive Punishment means you are adding (➕) a stimulus or consequence to decrease (⬊) an undesired 👎 behavior.

Negative Punishment means you are subtracting (➖) a stimulus or consequence to decrease (⬊) an undesired 👎 behavior.

In the context of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, anti-reproductive-rights groups frequently employ punishment (of differing forms and degrees) to decrease the recurrence or frequency of behavior they find undesirable.

As previously noted, in the context of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, punishment is deeply gendered: All who have the potential for pregnancy are viewed as women, regardless of their gender, and a woman is defined both as ultra-sacrificial servant and by the presupposed communal availability of her body for others’ use.

Since all pregnant people are viewed as women, they must be punished as women; therefore, punishing women doesn’t always take the same shape or form as punishing men. Once you understand punishment as the introduction (additon) or removal (subtraction) of a stimulus/consequence in order to decrease (⬊) the likelihood that an undesired 👎behavior reocurs or is repeated, the anti-reproductive-rights movement’s gender-specific forms of punishing women become evident.

---

Examples

For example, some anti-reproductive-rights laws aim to correct women's behavior through placing a punishment in between a woman's initial decision to terminate a pregnancy and her access to the procedure. Functionally, these tactics require women to make the decision twice prior to receiving an abortion.

After a woman has made her initial choice to terminate her pregnancy (the undesired behavior), these laws introduce a punishment (stimulus/consequence) intended to decrease the likelihood that she will make the same choice again.

Her initial choice, according to the anti-reproductive-rights framework, is wrong because (1) it does not conform to the rigid gender role demands of ultra-sacrificial motherhood, and (2) because it does not treat the sacred object with the same reverence afforded to a holy relic. In fact, her wrong choice could even lead to the desecration of that sacred object - the embryo/fetus.

Therefore, these anti-rights laws punish a woman's wrong initial choice in the hope that — following her punishment, when she is again presented with the choice of whether to continue the pregnancy that she had initially chosen to terminate — the woman will not repeat that wrong choice again.

Consider the following examples.

■ Mandatory Ultrasound Laws

Under such laws, a woman who has chosen to have an abortion (the undesired behavior) is punished for that wrong choice. As punishment for choosing to have an abortion instead of continuing her pregnancy, she is forcibly subjected to medically unnecessary vaginal penetration with an object (the introduction of a stimulus/consequence) while a physician or technician describes the machine-generated ultrasound image aloud to her.

This intimate violation of her body and her dignity (punishment) is intended to decrease the likelihood that the woman - following her punishment and after being, for a second time, presented with the choice of whether to terminate her pregnancy a before proceeding with the abortion procedure - will not make that wrong choice again (undesired behavior). The hope is that she will thus continue the pregnancy that she had initially chosen to terminate.³¹³² As Pennsylvania State Representative Kathy Rapp once explained, “[W]e hope through this legislation, once women see all the material that is available to them, the image of their child, the heartbeat, and hearing that heart beat, seeing those little fingers and toes, that they will make the informed decision to save that child, and to deliver that child and raise that child.”³³ Women must be forcibly penetrated in the most intrusive and intimate fashion so that they recognize the fetus as a sacred object and “make the informed decision” this time around. (And if she still chooses to terminate her pregnancy, the added cost of a medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound procedure ought to ‘teach her a lesson.’)

Mandatory transvaginal ultrasound laws punish women for making the wrong choice, employ punishment as a means of decreasing the likelihood that this wrong choice is repeated, and are the brainchildren of anti-reproductive-rights groups.

(*Note: Research does not support anti-reproductive-rights groups’ assertion that ultrasounds change a significant number of women’s minds or decrease the number of abortions.)

■ Biased Counseling Laws

Another common anti-reproductive-rights tactic is to hijack the idea of informed medical consent to punish women for initially choosing to terminate their pregnancies (the undesired behavior).

“Informed consent is a cornerstone of medicine, ensuring ethical treatment decisions and patient-centered care. Patients have the right to make informed and voluntary treatment decisions. Informed consent is more than merely a signature on a document; it is a communication process between the clinician and the patient. This process ensures that the patient is fully informed about the nature of the procedure or intervention, the potential risks and benefits, and the alternative treatments available. The patient can refuse or withdraw consent at any time during treatment. Informed consent respects patient autonomy, promotes trust in the patient-provider relationship, and safeguards against unethical practices.”³⁴

Biased counseling laws, however, actively misinform patients. These laws force physicians to lie to and frighten their patients; they must read a script created by anti-rights groups that is filled with outright lies and misinformation designed to frighten and manupulate women out of getting an abortion.³⁵³⁶³⁷³⁸³⁹ The captive patient is required to sit passively by as they are harmed through this bombardment of the scare tactics of the state.

Under such laws, a woman who has chosen to have an abortion (the undesired behavior) is punished for that wrong choice. As punishment for choosing to have an abortion instead of continuing her pregnancy, she is forcibly bombarded by the state's scripted attempt to terrorize her (the introduction of a stimulus/consequence). This punishment is intended to decrease the likelihood that the woman - following her punishment and is, for a second time, presented with the choice of whether to terminate her pregnancy before proceeding with the abortion procedure - will not make that wrong choice again (undesired behavior). The hope is that she will thus continue with the pregnancy that she had initially chosen to terminate.

She must be subjected to state correction aimed at pushing her towards conformity with the gender role demands of ultra-sacrificial motherhood.

This paternalistic method of punishing women for their choices is not benign. It causes direct, tangible harm to women⁴⁰⁴¹⁴²⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁵⁴⁶ with the long-shot hope of modifying their behavior.

Biased Counseling laws punish women for making the wrong choice, employ punishment as a means of decreasing the likelihood that this wrong choice is repeated, and are the brainchildren of anti-reproductive-rights groups.

---

Review

Opponents of reproductive rights believe women should strictly conform to the rigid gender roles of ultra-sacrificial motherhood, that abortion results in the desecration of a sacred object, and that transgressions should be punished in some way, shape, or form. They thereby employ positive and negative punishments to decrease the recurrence or frequency of the behaviors they find undesirable.

In operant conditioning, punishment is the introduction (additon) or removal (subtraction) of a stimulus or consequence in order to decrease (⬊) the likelihood that an undesired 👎behavior reocurs or is repeated.

Since all pregnant people are viewed women, they must be punished as women; therefore, punishing women doesn’t always take the same shape or form as punishing men. Once you understand punishment as the introduction (additon) or removal (subtraction) of a stimulus/consequence in order to decrease (⬊) the likelihood that an undesired 👎behavior reocurs or is repeated, the anti-reproductive-rights movement’s gender-specific forms of punishing women become evident. (Mandatory ultrasounds and biased counseling are examples.)

What other anti-rights laws or strategies can you think of that punish women? Leave a comment below.

---

Every small donation ensures that the independent journalism at rePro-Truth remains free and available to all. Support honest, independent journalism today.

---

1. Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093771

2. Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093771

3. Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093771

4. Cook, K. J. (1998). A passion to punish: Abortion opponents who favor the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093771

5. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

6. Swomley, J. M. (n.d.). Idolizing The Fetus: In Roman Catholic Theology, Mothers Take Second Place. Idolizing the fetus: In Roman Catholic theology, mothers take second place. by John M. Swomley. https://www.population-security.org/swom-98-06.htm

7. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

8. Swomley, J. M. (n.d.). Idolizing The Fetus: In Roman Catholic Theology, Mothers Take Second Place. Idolizing the fetus: In Roman Catholic theology, mothers take second place. by John M. Swomley. https://www.population-security.org/swom-98-06.htm

9. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

10. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

11. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

12. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

13. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

14. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x

15. Choudhury, N. (2022, June 24). “benevolent sexism” behind support for restrictive abortion legislation. Open Access Government. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/benevolent-sexism-behind-support-for-restrictive-abortion-legislation-roe-v-wade-us-law/134831/

16. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

17. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

18. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

19. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

20. Choudhury, N. (2022, June 24). “benevolent sexism” behind support for restrictive abortion legislation. Open Access Government. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/benevolent-sexism-behind-support-for-restrictive-abortion-legislation-roe-v-wade-us-law/134831/

21. Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists' opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x

22. Lowe, P., & Page, S.-J. (2022, November 22). Abortion bans and the anti-abortion movement: Understanding ultra-sacrificial motherhood. Feminist Theory. https://feministtheoryjournal.com/2022/11/22/abortion-bans-and-the-anti-abortion-movement-understanding-ultra-sacrificial-motherhood/

23. Lowe, P., & Page, S.-J. (2022, November 22). Abortion bans and the anti-abortion movement: Understanding ultra-sacrificial motherhood. Feminist Theory. https://feministtheoryjournal.com/2022/11/22/abortion-bans-and-the-anti-abortion-movement-understanding-ultra-sacrificial-motherhood/

24. Choudhury, N. (2022, June 24). “benevolent sexism” behind support for restrictive abortion legislation. Open Access Government. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/benevolent-sexism-behind-support-for-restrictive-abortion-legislation-roe-v-wade-us-law/134831/

25. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

26. Swomley, J. M. (n.d.). Idolizing The Fetus: In Roman Catholic Theology, Mothers Take Second Place. Idolizing the fetus: In Roman Catholic theology, mothers take second place. by John M. Swomley. https://www.population-security.org/swom-98-06.htm

27. Johnston, B. (2025, June 9). Sacrificial anti-abortionism - volume 21, September 2002. The Bulletin of the Colloquium on Violence & Religion. https://www.pdcnet.org/covrb/content/covrb_2002_0021_0013_0015?file_type=pdf

28. McLeod, S. (2025, March 17). Operant conditioning in psychology: B.F. Skinner theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html

29. General Psychology. (n.d.). Reinforcement and punishment. https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/operant-conditioning/#:~:text=All%20punishers%20

30. General Psychology. (n.d.). Reinforcement and punishment. https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/lumenpsychology/chapter/operant-conditioning/#:~:text=All%20punishers%20

31. Kelsey Anne Green, Humiliation, Degradation, Penetration: What Legislatively Required Pre-Abortion Transvaginal Ultrasounds and Rape Have in Common, 103 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1171 (2013).
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss4/5

32. Ian Vandewalker, Abortion and Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations of Medical Ethics, 19 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1 (2012).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol19/iss1/1

33. Kelsey Anne Green, Humiliation, Degradation, Penetration: What Legislatively Required Pre-Abortion Transvaginal Ultrasounds and Rape Have in Common, 103 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1171 (2013).
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol103/iss4/5

34. Shah, P. (2024, November 24). Informed consent. StatPearls [Internet]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/

35. Ian Vandewalker, Abortion and Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations of Medical Ethics, 19 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1 (2012).

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol19/iss1/1

36. Turan JM, Budhwani H. Restrictive Abortion Laws Exacerbate Stigma, Resulting in Harm to Patients and Providers. Am J Public Health. 2021 Jan;111(1):37-39. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305998. PMID: 33326286; PMCID: PMC7750605.

37. Counseling and waiting period requirements for abortion. Guttmacher Institute. (2025, May 29). https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion#:~:text=Mandated%20counseling%20is%20also%20medically,only%20one%20method%20of%20delivery.

38. Richardson, C. T., & Nash, E. (2022, August 30). Misinformed consent: The medical accuracy of state-developed abortion counseling materials. Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/10/misinformed-consent-medical-accuracy-state-developed-abortion-counseling-materials#:~:text=One%20center%2C%20for%20instance%2C%20said,to%20promote%20an%20antiabortion%20message.

39. Andrea D. Friedman, Bad Medicine: Abortion and the Battle Over Who Speaks for Women's Health, 20 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 45 (2013), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol20/iss1/4

40. Biased counseling against abortion. American Civil Liberties Union. (2001, April 11). https://www.aclu.org/documents/biased-counseling-against-abortion

41. Maya Manian, The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent and Abortion Decision-Making, 16 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 223 (2009).

Available at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/2017

42. Ian Vandewalker, Abortion and Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations of Medical Ethics, 19 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1 (2012).

Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjgl/vol19/iss1/1

43. Hansen, E. (2025, January 21). Legally mandated lies: The dangers of informed consent legislation. Columbia Political Review. http://www.cpreview.org/articles/2019/3/legally-mandated-lies-the-dangers-of-informed-consent-legislation

44. Andrea D. Friedman, Bad Medicine: Abortion and the Battle Over Who Speaks for Women's Health, 20 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 45 (2013), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol20/iss1/4

45. Hasday, J. E. (2018, September 25). Protecting them from themselves: The persistence of mutual benefits arguments for sex and race inequality. NYU Law Review. https://nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-84-number-6/protecting-them-from-themselves-the-persistence-of-mutual-benefits-arguments-for-sex-and-race-inequality/

46. Davies, C. (2009, March 6). Cara Davies, stereotyping and the new women-protective antiabortion movement. Bora Laskin Law Library. https://library.law.utoronto.ca/cara-davies-stereotyping-and-new-women-protective-antiabortion-movement