Reproductive coercion as a form of family violence against immigrant and refugee women in Australia

Abstract

Reproductive coercion (RC), generally considered a form of intimate partner violence (IPV), refers to perpetrator behaviours and actions that are intended to interfere with and control the autonomous decision-making of a person regarding their reproductive health. To date there are few studies that document RC as experienced by immigrant and refugee women. In this article, we explore cases of RC as described by women who were part of a larger qualitative study investigating violence against immigrant and refugee women in southern Australia. The study aimed to identify the types of RC detailed in immigrant and refugee women’s narratives, and to illustrate the contexts in which these experiences occurred. Analysis followed Baxter and Jack’s (2008) case study methodology; whereby particular “cases” are used to describe a phenomenon in context. Thirteen women from seven countries described experiences that fit definitions of RC. The cases describe various types of RC including violence during pregnancy with the intent of causing miscarriage, forced abortion, contraception sabotage and forced pregnancy. As well as intimate partners, some women described multiple perpetrators being complicit in their experience of RC, especially in regard to controlling women’s access to, and interactions with health services. More information is needed about immigrant and refugee women’s experiences of RC, and how vulnerability to multi-perpetrator violence affects health service access. In particular knowledge about how multi-perpetrator RC can affect consent processes for women who already face barriers to health care requires attention. Further research is required to address knowledge gaps about appropriate prevention and advocacy work about RC in refugee and migrant communities, and what training is needed for professionals in the family violence sector, women’s health services, women’s organisations, multicultural and ethno-specific services.

Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Women’s perceptions of perpetrator motivations

“…Thus, our findings are limited to RCA ocurring in the context of an intimate relationship and do not speak to the possible typologies of RCA perpetrated by family members. This is a critical area for exploration, since research suggests that women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds [4,6] and women with disabilities [58] are particularly likely to be subjected to these forms of RCA. Second, our analysis relies solely on the perceptions of victim/survivors rather than exploring the views of men who have perpetrated RCA.…”

“…Increasingly recognised as a major public health concern, it comprises two main forms: pregancy promoting behaviours (such as the use of threats, violence or coercion to cause pregnancy or to force someone to remain pregnant against their will); and pregnancy preventing behaviours (using threats, violence or coercion to force someone to terminate a pregnancy or to prevent them from getting pregnant) [3]. In both cases, RCA is primarily perpetrated against women, usually by their male intimate partners [1], though other family members can also be perpetrators [4][5][6]. Thus, it is most commonly understood as an interpersonal form of abuse, although we acknowledge that there is ongoing debate within the literature as to whether coercive behaviours within health systems [7], or government policies around access to abortion [8] could also be considered as forms of RCA rather than simply facilitators of it [1,9].…”

Reproductive Coercion and Abuse in Intimate Relationships: Understanding Perpetrator Motivations and Overlaps with Coercive Control

“…Thus, our findings are limited to RCA ocurring in the context of an intimate relationship and do not speak to the possible typologies of RCA perpetrated by family members. This is a critical area for exploration, since research suggests that women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds [4,6] and women with disabilities [49] are particularly likely to be subjected to these forms of RCA. Second, our analysis relies on the perceptions of victim/survivors rather than interrogating the views of men who have perpetrated RCA.…”