Tyranny of the Womb

From Brandeis to Gilead and the Dystopian Future of Women’s Reproductive Rights Through Futuristic AI Drone Technology in the United States

Imagine a futuristic dystopia where women, especially those with the audacity to get pregnant, are monitored by continuous surveillance drones, powered by artificial intelligence and armed with vague legislation. Sound far-fetched? Well we might be closer than we think. Justice Louis Brandeis, the progressive luminary who argued for “the right to be let alone,” must be rolling in his grave.  You see, Judge Brandeis was a bit of a paradox. On one hand, he was the defender of privacy, an advocate for individual rights against the combination of economic and political power, what he called a surefire recipe for tyranny. But on the other hand, he didn’t seem to mind when that tyranny came in the form of state-sponsored control over women’s bodies. Yes, the same Brandeis who championed privacy also signed off on Buck v. Bell, the landmark case that said, “Hey, sterilizing women against their will? Totally fine. It’s for the greater good.”

Remember that gem of a ruling? The state of Virginia’s attempt to create a more “perfect” society by forcibly sterilizing a young woman? Brandeis was totally onboard. After all, if the government doesn’t have the power to decide who should be allowed to reproduce, what kind of dystopian paradise are we even living in?  Fast forward to today, and it seems like we’ve come full circle. Women, once again, find themselves at the mercy of government regulation, with doctors terrified of losing their licenses or facing prison time for doing what should be simple medical procedures. But this time, it’s not eugenics (at least not explicitly) that’s driving state power, it’s the ever-so-vague pro-life legislation that leaves OB-GYNs second-guessing their every move. One slip-up, and they’re out of a job, their career sterilized, if you will.

As Dr. Mark Graves, a veteran OB-GYN, put it in an online comment, “What on earth makes you think people haven’t already been meeting with their legislators and trying to change laws? We have and women are still dying!” But hey, it’s 2024, and who needs medical expertise when you’ve got legislators armed with dogma and a total lack of healthcare training? Maybe instead of reforming healthcare, we should just let the AI drones handle it.  And what better way to streamline this brave new world than with AI drones that track every pregnant woman’s uterus? Imagine the efficiency! No need for pesky doctors who might hesitate when faced with poorly written laws. Just let the drones decide when a fetus becomes more important than the woman carrying it. After all, as Tiboer Mandely pointed out, “Doctors are forced to wait until a life-or-death moment.”

But with the power of AI drones, why wait? Every pregnant woman can be fitted with a handy surveillance bracelet, like a Fitbit, but for fetal development! Big Brother isn’t watching but Congress might have just given birth to it.  Welcome to the future (sarcasm on)!

This isn’t even a far leap from Brandeis’s utopian vision of state power “meeting modern conditions by regulation.” Muller v. Oregon, anyone? Remember when the Supreme Court argued that the government has a special interest in controlling how women use their bodies because get this those bodies might give birth to future generations? Women, a form of collective property. You can’t make this stuff up.  Margaret Atwood sure didn’t when she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, though. She simply took a look at history and projected it onto a grim future where women’s reproductive rights are obliterated in the name of artificial intelligence government control.

As JoEllen Wynne, another healthcare veteran, aptly commented, “I am disgusted to be a United States citizen and horrified to be a native Texan.” Join the club, JoEllen. Doctors aren’t just quitting OB-GYN practice, they’re running for the hills, choosing specialties where they don’t have to consult a lawyer every time they need to save a patient’s life.  And speaking of lawyers, let’s not forget the hospital administrators who now call the shots literally. “Women in fact were not treated because hospital lawyers told MDs not to act until women were sicker,” noted Susanna Levin, NP. Nothing says we care about your health like waiting for sepsis before intervening. It’s not a dystopia; it’s artificial intelligence healthcare, American style.

So here we are, one legal decision away from a future where women are reduced to walking incubators under constant AI drone surveillance by the United States. Forget privacy, forget autonomy just thank your lucky stars that AI hasn’t figured out how to handcuff you to the hospital bed yet. Judge Brandeis, with his contradictory legacy of both privacy advocacy and pro-eugenics decisions, might have been onto something, the ultimate dystopia doesn’t happen all at once. It creeps in, one Government action at a time.  Welcome to the Republic of Gilead, brought to you by the U.S. Government. Now featuring AI drones and 24/7 pregnancy monitoring, because nothing says freedom like AI government control of your uterus. The ongoing debate over abortion rights in the U.S. has extended far beyond political corridors, shaking the foundations of Government controlled artificial intelligence healthcare itself.

A recent Senate hearing on the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has sparked intense discussions not just in Washington but also among doctors and healthcare professionals across the country. Their comments on online forums offer a stark view of the reality facing medical providers and their patients in states with restrictive abortion laws.  Dr. Mark Graves, an OB-GYN with decades of experience, voiced his frustration, criticizing the Senate’s approach to legislating healthcare without proper medical knowledge. “What on earth makes you think people haven’t already been meeting with their legislators and trying to change laws? We have and women are still dying!” Graves lamented the position medical professionals now find themselves in, forced to navigate laws written without their input. He argued that the laws, shaped by politically motivated appointments to the Supreme Court, are endangering women’s lives.  The perspective is shared by many others in the medical community, who are increasingly distressed by the repercussions of these laws on their practice. JoEllen Wynne, a healthcare provider with 40 years of experience, pointed to the shortage of OB-GYNs as a direct result of these policies. Young medical students, she explained, are opting for fields of medicine where they aren’t at risk of imprisonment or prosecution for simply performing their jobs. “Legislators with no medical education, armed with dogma, are setting policy over the objections of highly educated medical professionals,” she said, reflecting a growing sense of helplessness and frustration among those at the frontlines of healthcare. Louis Levy, MD, who identifies as a pro-choice physician, also weighed in, asserting that the Supreme Court was legally correct in determining that there is no constitutional right to abortion. Yet, Levy’s position is nuanced, as he added that the government has no authority to dictate what medical care individuals can or cannot receive, a sentiment that resonates with those who see abortion restrictions as an overreach into personal autonomy.

But for many doctors, the legal technicalities pale in comparison to the human cost.  Myrna Solganick described the situation bluntly, “When women die as a result of a law, that too is a bad law, a terrible law.” Solganick and others like her are witnessing the consequences of these restrictions firsthand, women are dying or coming close to death because the laws are preventing doctors from acting in time.  The laws themselves, particularly in GOP-controlled states, are often vaguely written, which Tiboer Mandely argues is intentional. The ambiguity has instilled fear in doctors, leading to paralysis when making life-saving decisions. Physicians, now terrified of legal repercussions, may wait until it’s too late to intervene, leaving women to suffer or die. “Doctors are forced to wait until a life-or-death moment,” Mandely explained, highlighting how this fear-driven environment is turning even compassionate care into a potential criminal act.  Susanna Levin, a nurse practitioner, pointed out that hospital lawyers, not doctors, are often dictating when and how care can be provided, causing unnecessary delays in treatment. “Women in fact were not treated because hospital lawyers told MDs not to act until women were sicker,” she said. The interference of legal concerns over medical judgment is creating chaos in hospitals, with some patients returning in critical condition after being denied care in earlier stages of their illnesses.

This pattern of delays and hesitance is not isolated. The current laws have forced doctors and nurses into a bind, unable to treat patients without fearing prosecution. Levin called it cowardice for any physician to stand by and let a patient die, yet as the debate continues, it’s clear that many providers feel they have no choice. The risk of legal action, loss of license, or imprisonment weighs heavily on the healthcare community, resulting in inaction and tragically, death.  These online discussions reveal a deep and growing divide between healthcare providers and the laws that now govern them. Doctors are increasingly wary of practicing in states where restrictive abortion laws threaten not only their patients’ lives but also their own careers. As the legal landscape continues to shift, the voices of those on the ground, the doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals, may hold the key to understanding the true cost of these laws. They are calling for clarity, compassion, and, most of all, the ability to provide care without fear.

The Senate Finance Committee’s recent hearing on the impact of the Dobbs abortion decision highlighted sharp disagreements over its effects on women’s healthcare. Republicans, such as Senators Mike Crapo and Ron Johnson, argued that the hearing’s title, “Chaos and Control: How Trump Criminalized Women’s Health Care,” was misleading, accusing Democrats of sensationalizing the situation. They claimed the real chaos stemmed from rhetoric suggesting women’s healthcare was criminalized, not from the Dobbs decision itself.  On the other side, Democrats and witnesses, like Georgetown professor Michele Goodwin, emphasized the tangible consequences of the ruling, citing clinic closures, increased risks to women’s health, and the criminalization of doctors. Personal stories, such as that of Kaitlyn Joshua from Louisiana, who was denied timely medical care due to new abortion restrictions, underscored the dangers faced by women, particularly those in economically disadvantaged areas.

OB/Gyn Dr. Amelia Huntsberger testified that restrictive laws in Idaho, which allow few exceptions for abortion, drove her and her husband, also a physician, to relocate to Oregon. She noted that these laws are discouraging medical students from pursuing careers in states with harsh abortion restrictions, particularly in women’s health fields. The committee also discussed two cases of women in Georgia who died following incomplete abortions. Senator Steve Daines argued that these tragedies resulted from a lack of FDA safety protocols, not state abortion laws, sparking further debate.  The hearing showcased deeply divided opinions on the legal and healthcare outcomes of the Dobbs decision, with many medical professionals expressing frustration over vague laws that put both doctors and patients at risk. Online commenters echoed similar sentiments, criticizing legislators for enacting harmful policies without medical expertise and calling out the challenges posed by these legal uncertainties.

Politicians are now considering on adapting and modifying artificial intelligence (AI) drones used in agriculture to surveil livestock to ensure a womens well-being and address any potential issues before they escalate. Politicians disagree that this would constitute dystopian surveillance because if it’s good enough for cows, why shouldn’t it be good enough for pregnant human women?  Imagine the benefits of continuous surveillance for expectant mothers, modeled after the AI systems now being used to protect our bovine companions. You can see the future arguments, “Pregnant cows, equipped with sensors and monitored by drones, have lower mortality rates, reduced birthing complications, and greater productivity. These AI drones analyze behavioral patterns, track vital signs, and alert caretakers to any signs of distress. Why wouldn’t this same level of vigilance work for human women, who face even higher stakes when it comes to maternal health?  In fact, drone surveillance could solve many of the issues plaguing maternal care in the U.S. With AI constantly watching over pregnant women, there would be no need to wait for medical professionals to make subjective decisions. Algorithms would alert doctors when a fetus or mother’s health is in jeopardy. Laws about when medical intervention is necessary? No problem. A smart drone could ping the hospital the second it detects a complication, cutting through the ethical quagmires and ambiguous legal frameworks that so often stall treatment today.”

For example, let’s look at the technology already in place on futuristic farms. AI drones are equipped with thermal cameras, movement sensors, and biometric analysis tools to ensure that cows are kept in the best possible condition for calving.  But some might argue that this system sounds invasive, an infringement on human privacy, all leading to a slippery slope to George Orwell’s hell.  “Why not apply this system to human healthcare? A pregnant woman’s temperature and movements could be continuously monitored, sending data to a healthcare team on standby. In this brave new world, even bathroom trips could provide real-time insights into fetal health. It’s all for safety, after all. If we trust farmers to surveil cows for their own good, why not extend this trust to women’s healthcare providers? After all, Judge Louis Brandeis, celebrated as a champion of privacy rights, once argued that the government has an interest in regulating the health and well being of its citizens, especially women. And, in case you missed it, that includes ensuring future generations are born healthy.  Who could argue with protecting life? After all, isn’t the purpose of government to safeguard lives? Why not employ continuous AI drone technology to enforce this noble goal?”

It is important for our individualistic society to weigh the economic benefits and risks to privacy. In the agricultural industry, proponents argue that the potential reduction in veterinary bills and loss of livestock due to AI drone monitoring could be massive. Similarly widespread AI surveillance of pregnant women could reduce hospital costs, cut down on unnecessary visits, and even lower insurance premiums but would invade human privacy.

To make the comparison even clearer, let’s imagine a world where continuous AI drone surveillance becomes the norm. Women, just like cows, would be constantly pestered by AI drones constantly watching over them. AI would mete out punishment for missed prenatal appointments and overlooked warning signs. With an artificial intelligence drone buzzing overhead, every pregnant woman would potentially be a model of maternal health living life like a slave in the Matrix.  In the end, what’s truly dystopian is not the idea of AI drones monitoring pregnancies, but the lack of resistance by everyday American women to using such privacy-invading technologies.  Just because it’s good enough for cows, it should not be utilized against American women.