Long-Standing Inequalities in Reproductive Control

Historic attempts to limit or expand the populations of particular demographic groups have created long-standing inequities in access and use of reproductive technology. Movements to control women’s reproductive capacity have been political and social in nature, operating in both covert and obvious ways. Ultimately, the reproduction of some women was deemed more valuable than others. White women, who were designated as “fit,” were encouraged to reproduce and their access to contraceptives was limited. On the other hand, minority women were considered “unfit” and were discouraged and even forcefully prevented from reproducing. The effects of these initiatives associated with the Eugenics Movement have persisted long after formal programs were discontinued. This complicated history continues to be seen in the persistence of societal and governmental dominance over women’s reproductive lives today.

The Eugenics movement achieved popularity in the early 1900s and although now most people would denounce it, its influence continues to the present day. It was built on the basis that social problems in the United States were a result of “biological degeneracy” (Roberts, 1997). Thus, eugenics advocates argued, specific problems such as poverty could be resolved by controlling reproduction, and this would improve society as a whole. Attempts to control reproduction manifested in two ways. Positive eugenics encouraged the reproduction of white women while negative eugenics curtailed the procreation of minority women considered socially undesirable (Roberts, 1997). These themes bleed into the current reproductive environment in the United States, as reproduction is still stratified; the reproductive lives of some women are supported and rewarded over others (Rapp, 2001).

In order to encourage White American women to bear children, political and social agendas idealized their reproduction and restricted their access to contraceptives and abortion. White women were expected to bear many children to serve as workers and soldiers to support the betterment of the nation (Solinger, 2005). Their capacity to reproduce was a measure of their worth as women. This pressure to have children restricted women’s rights as defined by Loretta Ross in her concept of reproductive justice (2006). The right to not have a child was not respected for white women. The social pressures making women feel like they had to reproduce took the power away from women in controlling their own reproductive lives.

In addition to the social pressures that strongly encouraged reproduction in white women, other forces prevented this group from forgoing having children. This was accomplished by limiting access to contraceptives and abortion. The idea of a birth control pill was appealing to many women as it would be a way of maintaining their reproductive liberty (Roberts, 1997). However, restrictions over access to birth control prevented many women from obtaining it. This pattern placed greater power in the law than in women in controlling their reproductive lives. Birth control was made legal for married before unmarried women, and even then it was seen as a mark of a bad reputation (Solinger, 2005). Laws prohibiting birth control were deemed unconstitutional in 1965, yet women still face obstacles in accessing oral contraceptives and getting insurance coverage (Roberts, 1997). The pressure to conform to societal expectations and restricted access to birth control has denied women the capability to manage their lives.

Access to other forms of reproductive control has been strategically limited as well. In the 20th century, it was nearly impossible for white women to find a doctor who would sterilize them (Roberts, 1997). Furthermore, the government has long denied safe, legal, and funded abortions. White women who wanted to abort a pregnancy were deemed immoral. The American Medical Association described abortion as a threat to social order because it undermined the patriarchal family structure (Solinger, 2005). Although abortion was made legal in 1973 during Roe v. Wade, socially constructed abortion stigma continues to the present day. Women seeking abortions are characterized by defying the nature of womanhood (Kumar et al., 2009). The medical community perpetuated the idea that abortion results in profound negative emotions and regret in order to deter women from choosing the procedure. However, this notion has been dismissed by research because negative emotions surrounding abortion actually decrease over time (Rocca et al., 2020). The Turnaway Study, a 10-year longitudinal analysis, found that 95% of women believed that their abortion was the right decision years later (Foster, 2020). Misinformation about the consequences of abortion has been used to fuel stigma and prevent women from controlling their pregnancy. Abortion restriction by law still exists and as a result, 20 million women risk their lives annually by attempting to undergo an unsafe abortion (Kumar et al., 2009). The propagation of the idea that it is a white woman’s duty to bear children and the restriction of access to contraception and abortion continues to decenter women in their reproductive lives.

In contrast, the reproduction of minority women has been not only discouraged but actively limited. For instance, the reproductive capacity of black women has been manipulated to serve the needs of society. In the slave system, owners forced their slave women to bear children through rape and coercion in order to provide new generations of slaves after the outlaw of the international slave trade (Solinger, 2005). However, this pattern shifted to discourage reproduction among black women when social problems such as overcrowding and poverty were blamed on this group. People thought that curtailing the reproduction of black Americans would solve these problems and make a more favorable next generation (Solinger, 2005).

Medical professionals encouraged sterilization and contraceptive use in minority women more than in white women, as evidenced by the alignment with the birth control movement with the Eugenics Movement. Margaret Sanger was a lead advocate for access to birth control and formed the organization that became Planned Parenthood (Roberts, 1997). Sanger argued that contraception enhanced women’s ability to control their own reproductive lives so that they may live freely and participate fully in society. However, in order to gain support for her agenda, she supported the idea that birth control serves the nation’s interest to control the population of specific groups (Roberts, 1997). Physicians encouraged minority women to choose sterilization as their form of birth control because it was irreversible and often misinformed them about the consequences. Minority women were also used as subjects in clinical trials for birth control pills without their consent, potentially with dire consequences (Gutierrez & Fuentes, 2009). White, male doctors limited black women’s power to choose to have children by coercing them into the use of birth control or sterilization.

Sterilization was forced on many minority women in the United States without consent and against their will. Thousands of women were manipulated into receiving irreversible tubal ligation often without their knowledge. For instance, the United States Puerto Rican population was targeted for sterilization, leading to this group having the highest sterilization rate in the world by 1980. Many more Mexican women living in the US in the 1960s through the 1970s were unknowingly sterilized during C sections (Gutierrez & Fuentes, 2009). Minority groups were specifically targeted in these terrible ways. States have had sterilization laws in place into the 2000s which demonstrates the persistence of this issue (Miller et al., 2019). Sterilization was used in an attempt to improve societal conditions rather than developing healthcare and community programs that would actually solve the problems. Research suggests that fertility limitation does not lead to an improvement in economic and social conditions, rather access to a wide range of reproductive health services will help (Gutierrez & Fuentes, 2009). These programs deliberately violated the freedom of minority women to regulate their reproduction.

Contraception and abortion are two reproductive health resources that should be available to women to empower them to make their own choices about their reproductive lives. However, political programs and social pressures have attempted to encourage or curtail reproduction in specific demographic groups by misusing these technologies. This has snatched control away from thousands of women who have had little to say about their reproduction. This assumes that women do not have the capacity to make their own choices or that they do not deserve to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive lives. Unfortunately, this complicated history has allowed differential access and use of contraceptives and abortion to persist into the present day. Barriers to abortion and contraception still exist, making it difficult and even dangerous for women to control their right to not have children. Reports that women in ICE detention centers were being forcibly sterilized by hysterectomy are currently being investigated(Dickerson, 2020). There is great mistrust in the medical community especially with regards to reproduction as there is a complicated history of mistreatment. This could deter women from using and obtaining resources to live their ideal reproductive lives. All in all, the reproductive capacity of some women is still valued over others and methods of contraception and abortion have been used to extend this problem. Contraception and abortion need to be reclaimed as tools to empower women to have the right to reproduce in the ways they chose.

References

Dickerson, C. (2020, September 16). Inquiry Ordered Into Claims Immigrants Had Unwanted Gynecology Procedures. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/us/ICE-hysterectomies-whistleblower-georgia.html

Foster, D. G. (2020, May 23). The Turnaway Study. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://turnawaystudy.com/

Gutierrez, E. R., & Fuentes, L. (2009). Population Control by Sterilization: The Cases of Puerto Rican and Mexican-Origin Women in the United States. Latino Research Review, 7(3), 85-100.

Kumar, A., Hessini, L., & Mitchell, E. M. (2009). Conceptualizing abortion stigma. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 11(6), 625-639. doi:10.1080/13691050902842741

Miller, L., Kielty, M., & Walters, P. (2019, July 17). Radiolab G: Unfit. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/g-unfit

Rapp, R. (2001). Gender, Body, Biomedicine: How Some Feminist Concerns Dragged Reproduction to the Center of Social Theory. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15(4), 466-477. doi:10.1525/maq.2001.15.4.466

Roberts, D. (1997). The Dark Side of Birth Control. In Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (pp. 56-103). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Rocca, C. H., Samari, G., Foster, D. G., Gould, H., & Kimport, K. (2020). Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma. Social Science & Medicine, 248, 112704. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112704

Ross, L. (2006). Understanding Reproductive Justice. Feminist Theory Reader, 14-19. doi:10.4324/9781003001201-11

Solinger, R. (2005). What Is Reproductive Politics? In Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Empowering Reproductive Technologies Are M