{"id":9598,"date":"2025-09-24T00:53:48","date_gmt":"2025-09-24T00:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/?p=9598"},"modified":"2025-09-24T00:53:48","modified_gmt":"2025-09-24T00:53:48","slug":"from-womb-to-web-how-data-surveils-and-influences-reproductive-choices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/from-womb-to-web-how-data-surveils-and-influences-reproductive-choices\/","title":{"rendered":"From Womb to Web: How Data Surveils and Influences Reproductive Choices"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Sept. 23, 2025, 8:54 PM<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s a tale as old as time: Everyone from neighbors to US Senators has an opinion about the female reproductive system and how biologically female people (hereafter referred to as female\/women) make healthcare decisions. There is a shocking lack of privacy over digital data related to women\u2019s reproductive health choices, specifically abortion. This data is used to track, influence, and prosecute women\u2019s reproductive choices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Women\u2019s reproductive information is under constant scrutiny, and this lack of privacy harms their autonomy, trust, and freedom in our society. Many comparisons have been made that data is the new oil<\/a> or gold<\/a> in our economy. Healthcare data could be even more lucrative than these commodities if not for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA<\/a>), which protects health information from being sold or shared. However, after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe, states have legislated<\/a> against abortion in unprecedented ways with data<\/a> playing a critical role<\/a>. States have not only banned abortions, but they are also trying to enforce punishment for violations of these laws. Texas<\/a> sued a New York physician for sending abortion pills to one of their residents, and Louisiana<\/a> attempted to extradite and prosecute the same physician for sending abortion pills to a resident of their state as well. Alabama\u2019s<\/a> attorney general spoke of criminally prosecuting reproductive rights groups that helped people access abortion care out of state. Republican legislators<\/a> in various states have proposed legislation to charge women with homicide for seeking abortions. These lawsuits would require evidence, and online data has already been used as such. In Nebraska<\/a> Facebook<\/a> chat logs were used to prosecute a mother helping her daughter obtain an abortion. In Texas<\/a> text messages were used as evidence<\/a> to prove a woman attempted an at-home abortion with assistance from her friends. The booming industry of data brokering<\/a> means the government can buy personal information instead of obtaining warrants; the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have already done so. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The digital world is being weaponized against women by surveilling what they do and obstructing what they see.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Still, text messages are one thing, but health information is often assumed to be universally protected by HIPAA due to the nature of the information. However, HIPAA applies to data held by covered entities<\/a>, such as healthcare providers or health plans, while period-tracking<\/a> apps, for example, are owned by third-party<\/a> companies, so that health information is not protected by HIPAA. A Cambridge<\/a> report recently noted menstrual data can be up to 200 times more valuable than basic demographic data for advertising purposes. Such steep value exacerbates the significant lack of privacy for reproductive choices by enticing the government and private companies to take advantage of personal health information. A well-known example of this is Flo, a popular menstrual tracking app, which has faced significant criticism<\/a> and attention over mishandling data and disclosures<\/a> on their app. Flo settled<\/a> with the Federal Trade Commission over concerns on sharing private health information with other companies in 2021. A class action brought against Flo in a US District Court in California over violating the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act in 2021 was settled<\/a> in July of this year. Interestingly, Meta, which was a named defendant in the class action for receiving the private health information from Flo, did not settle, and a jury recently held<\/a> they violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There have been widespread concerns about the role that social media and advertising are playing in the political turmoil surrounding abortion, much intended to interfere with women making their healthcare choices. Examples include the use of location tracking<\/a> data to send anti-abortion advertisements to people who visited Planned Parenthood clinics while advocates note that information<\/a> about abortion has been increasingly censored<\/a> on social media platforms. Censorship is a particularly concerning issue: While we sacrifice some privacy<\/a> to easily access information<\/a> on the Internet, these women lose their privacy due to their reproductive choices and cannot access a full range of information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The right to privacy has been referred to as a \u2018gateway\u2019<\/a> right fundamental to freedom, autonomy, and other tenets central to democracy. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to privacy implied by the Constitution since 1965<\/a>, and although Dobbs has sparked debate over what is included under this right to privacy, it is still held<\/a> as a fundamental right in the US. Digital privacy is just as important, providing society with a sense of security and independence that is crumbling away for many women. The digital world is being weaponized against women by surveilling what they do and obstructing what they see. While these concerns are far more salient for a hot button topic like abortion, everyone should be concerned about this lack of digital privacy. The data from apps tracking fitness and mental health are also unprotected<\/a> by HIPAA; meanwhile, targeted ads surveil<\/a> general online content. In 2023, it was estimated<\/a> that American data brokers generated more than $250 billion selling personal information, which includes but is not limited to reproductive health information. Digital privacy impacts all Americans, and it is currently having a direct and detrimental impact on the lives of women across the country. Congress must recognize the importance of digital privacy and enact legislation protecting sensitive personal information from exploitation to restore freedom and autonomy to America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diya Dharmesh Patel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Diya attended UNC Chapel Hill\u00a0for her undergraduate degree and double majored in Health Policy and Management and Political Science. In law school, Diya is the President of the Carolina Health Law Organization, the Asian American Law Student Association representative on the Student Bar Association, and the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Women in Law organization.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The digital world is being weaponized against women by surveilling what they do and obstructing what they see.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":9599,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[472,648,646,566,644,647,645,193],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9598"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9598"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9598\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9600,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9598\/revisions\/9600"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9599"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9598"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9598"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9598"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}