Abstract

 
 
 Joining a conversation about menstruation and the law, this Essay interprets “law” to mean regulation––a source of burden, constraint, and interference justified by reason. The object of my regulatory agenda is a substance perceived by Western thinkers at least since Aristotle as the superior counterpart to menstrual fluid.1 Traditions that celebrate semen as vital or affirmative, while recoiling from and controlling the other gendered emission that hurts no one, get reality backward. Law as burden, constraint, and interference ought to regulate semen and leave menstrual fluid alone.
 Contrast the two substances. One of them started out with the potentially useful function of building a uterine lining. That possibility concluded, menstrual fluid is benign. The other effluvium started out with the potentially useful function of launching a pregnancy. Pregnancy is a good thing when it is desired by the person who has to live with the bulk of pregnancy’s detriments. Along with its capacity to do an important job, semen causes quite the array of harms.
 A statute on point for this purpose, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, regulates material that “may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use.”2 Because semen “has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface,” it also aligns with the definition of “toxic” in the statute.3 Judges, policymakers, litigants, and ordinary people can all learn from well-established legal labels to understand semen as a stark example of an externality.
 
 
 
 Nothing in this statute impedes the characterization I propose: The FHSA lists substances that lie outside its purview,4 and semen is not among them. Labeling, containment, and emergency protocols—splash protection, if you like—are the hazardous-substance safety impositions I would apply to semen.
 
 
 
 
 
Highlights
Joining a conversation about menstruation and the law, this Essay interprets “law” to mean regulation––a source of burden, constraint, and interference justified by reason
The object of my regulatory agenda is a substance perceived by Western thinkers at least since Aristotle as the superior counterpart to menstrual fluid.[1]
A statute on point for this purpose, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, regulates material that “may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use.”[2]. Because semen “has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface,” it aligns with the definition of “toxic” in the statute.[3]
Summary
Led by the United States Supreme Court, law worsens the dangerous nature of semen by thwarting repair of one of the key harms it inflicts, the commencement of an unwanted pregnancy. Ideologues have worked diligently for decades to obstruct a termination right after the Court found it in the United States Constitution. States whose laws ascribe personhood to a fertilized egg permit fertility clinics to throw it in the trash.[7] The Supreme Court has upheld legislation that forces formerly pregnant persons and abortion providers to treat a fetus-corpse as human “remains” and give it a dignified burial or cremation, no matter
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call