Reproductive justice means fighting for a safe, healthy environment for all children. Environmentalists are among those leading this fight.

Our Children’s Trust held a press conference on July 16 alongside Senators and Representatives to discuss Lighthiser v. Trump and the “Children’s Fundamental Rights to Life and a Stable Climate System” resolution. (Ava Blando)

At least 137 people are dead after devastating flash-flooding in Texas in early July, including many children. As climate change induced disasters grow more common and the Trump administration rolls back environmental protections, several organizations are pursuing creative legal strategies to defend children’s fundamental right to a safe, healthy and stable natural environment.

Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit public interest law firm, is currently suing the Trump administration to protect young people’s environmental rights. The firm has represented youth plaintiffs in climate litigation for over 10 years.

Green Amendments for the Generations, an independent 501(c)(3), is working to enshrine environmental rights explicitly in state constitutions across the country. The two organizations have a synergistic relationship, according to Green Amendments founder Maya van Rossum, J.D., and Our Children’s Trust litigator and co-director Mat dos Santos, J.D.

Lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser speaks at the press conference July 16. (Ava Blando)

Environmental Justice, Reproductive Justice

The environmental movement (often youth-led and women-led) is a feminist fight by its very nature.

The three guiding principles of reproductive justice are the right to have a child, the right not to have a child and, importantly, the right to raise your children in a safe and healthy environment. Pollution and climate change, among other violations, are a clear threat to this third principle.

Almost 40 percent of older members of Gen Z doubt whether to have children because of the threat climate change poses, making the climate crisis a widespread reproductive justice issue.

Artwork created by Ashley Park, Green Amendments for the Generations contributor and former member of the New Jersey Student Sustainability Coalition Artistic Activism Team. (The Delaware Riverkeeper website)

The reproductive justice framework is a defining feature of contemporary feminist thought. It was coined by Black feminists to emphasize how every human rights issue impacts reproductive decision-making, especially for women of color and other vulnerable communities.

“I believe in the alignment of reproductive justice, racial justice, health justice, and environmental justice. I just think there’s this wonderful alignment that’s taking place,” Loretta Ross, reproductive justice pioneer and founding member of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, told FEMINIST.

As pollution and climate change disproportionately impact Black and brown communities, women, younger generations, low-income people and people in the Global South, environmentalism remains intertwined with the fight for economic and racial equality as well as gender and reproductive rights.

Youth v. Gov

On behalf of 22 young people, Our Children’s Trust filed Lighthiser v. Trump in May as part of its multi-case Youth v. Gov effort, asserting that three of the president’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders violate their constitutional rights to life, health and safety.

The organization is suing under the Fifth Amendment for the right to life. They are also making an Ultra Vires claim (they claim Trump is acting outside his executive authority), and under the State-Created Danger Doctrine, claiming government inflicted harm.

“Children right now are suffering from extreme heat, illness, asthma, the flooding that’s happening in Texas. People are literally dying, being deprived of that most basic right [to life] … It is unlike anything we’ve ever seen, and we want to stop it,” dos Santos told Ms.

Impact litigator Mat dos Santos speaks as Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and youth plaintiffs in Lighthiser stand nearby. (Ava Blando)

Children right now are suffering from extreme heat, illness, asthma, the flooding that’s happening in Texas. People are literally dying, being deprived of that most basic right [to life] … It is unlike anything we’ve ever seen, and we want to stop it. Mat dos Santos, J.D.

On July 16, hundreds gathered outside the U.S. Capitol to hear from Lighthiser plaintiffs and members of Congress at a press conference hosted by Our Children’s Trust and several organizational partners.

The same day, the Children’s Fundamental Rights to Life and a Stable Climate System resolution was introduced by Sen. Merkley (D-Oreg.) and Reps. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Raskin (D-Md.). More than 50 additional senators and representatives joined the resolution as cosponsors.

One of the signs from Our Children’s Trust at the July 16 press conference. (Ava Blando)

“As I speak, my rights to life and liberty are being violated. As I speak, more and more greenhouse gases are getting trapped in our atmosphere. As I speak, my health and safety is put in further jeopardy.” said lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser, 19, at the press event.

Plaintiff Lander Busse, 20, told Ms. that his family’s “culture and way of life” in Montana “has been degraded” by climate change.

“Whether it’s the streams that we fish in,” he continued, “or the game we hunt so that we can put food on the table for our families, all of that is in jeopardy because of the impacts of climate change and the prioritization of fossil fuels in this administration.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oreg.) turns towards the Lighthiser plaintiffs. (Ava Blando)

“We’re more optimistic than ever for the success of our case,” added Busse. “I’m an undefeated climate litigant at this point, so we’re going for the federal and we’re hoping to keep that record.”

The Green Amendment Movement

Lighthiser and Busse were also plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana, in which the Montana Supreme Court ruled that state law restricting consideration of climate change in environmental reviews violated youth plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment.

The suit saw success largely because Montana has a Green Amendment.

Green Amendments are constitutional amendments in the Bill of Rights section of a constitution explicitly declaring the legal right to a safe, healthy and stable natural environment for all people. Such amendments are a powerful legal tool to advocate for climate action, environmental justice and multigenerational protection from dangerous ‘forever’ chemicals, pesticides and endocrine disruptors that impact reproductive health.

Thus far, only Montana, Pennsylvania and New York have Green Amendments. The organization Green Amendments for the Generations (GAFTG) is working state-by-state alongside community partners to get new state-level Green Amendments passed.

I want my children to have a happy, healthy future. The laws as written aren’t going to do that. They are going to sacrifice my children, and all children, to horribly degraded environments. Maya van Rossum, J.D.

Led by Maya van Rossum and her daughter, Anneke Walsh van Rossum, J.D., GAFTG is creating new legal tools for environmental advocates. The organization has ongoing efforts in 32 states and federally.

Founded in 2014 after van Rossum’s victory suing Pennsylvania under the Commonwealth’s Green Amendment, GAFTG seeks to make environmental rights enforceable across the country.

“You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to clean water and clean air,” van Rossum said, “You may have an inalienable human right, but it’s not enforceable under the law. Do you really have the right then?”

“Helping people understand that there is this fundamental failing in our system of environmental laws that needs to be addressed, and that the best way to address this is through constitutional reform, is part of the work [of Green Amendments for the Generations],” van Rossum added.

Provided by Green Amendments for the Generations

GAFTG-supported Green Amendment proposals even have provisions specifically protecting future generations. Van Rossum says this is intentional.

“Legally, that generational protection really raises the bar in terms of the quality of environmental protection that people can advocate for, and are entitled to,” van Rossum said. “Protecting the quality of water for the next week, month, year or even 10 years, opens the door to tremendous amounts of pollution, as compared to having a legal obligation to protect water over 50 years, 100 years, generationally.”

Van Rossum added that her push for multigenerational protection is also motivated by her identity as a mother.

“I have children, and I want my children to have a happy, healthy future. The laws as written aren’t going to do that. They are going to sacrifice my children, and all children, to horribly degraded environments,” van Rossum said. “We have a responsibility to make sure we are doing all we can to ensure the safety and security of future generations.”

(Sydney Klassen-Rosewarn)

We, feminists, often discuss the essential right to contraception and abortion. Intersectional feminists, particularly women of color and disabled women, have encouraged our movement to resist forced sterilization, eugenics and other forms of reproductive oppression, and to incorporate all human rights into the feminist movement.

Dangerous microplastics have been found in breastmilk. A screenshot from Maya van Rossum on LinkedIn.

The first and second components of reproductive justice—the right to have children and the right not to—are, of course, essential. Even so, those components are only part of a whole.

In the face of climate change, pollution and the sixth mass-extinction, in addition to many other human rights issues, we cannot forget that comprehensive reproductive justice also means fighting for a safe, healthy environment for all children, present and future.