Reproductive justice: Non‐interference or non‐domination?

Abstract

Spurred by the Cairo Conference in 1994 that espoused the cause for reproductive rights, an activist group of twelve American women of colour first introduced the concept of 'reproductive justice'. 1 Loreta Ross, one of the founders of the reproductive justice movement, mentioned that upon attending the conference the group recognised that women's ability to control what happens to their bodies is constantly challenged by poverty, racism, environmental degradation, colonialism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, structural inequalities, and so on. 2 'Reproductive justice' was a term coined by them to introduce a broader approach that moved away from the restrictive notion of choice and addressed the aspects of women's social status and intersectional forms of oppression that threatened Black women's bodily integrity. It soon became a larger movement towards reproductive dignity by incorporating women of colour from across the world.While the intersectional aspect of reproductive justice has garnered a good amount of scholarly attention, the theoretical outlining of justice (that includes intersectionality) has received little to none.In this paper I attempt to clarify the relevant kind of freedom an adequate theory of reproductive justice would postulate. To do so, I first elucidate the features of reproductive justice as understood by the founders of the reproductive justice movement (Section 2). I then compare two approaches to reproductive freedom: an approach that takes freedom as non-interference as integral to reproductive justice (Section 3) and an approach that sees freedom as non-domination 1

Re-defining reproductive coercion using a socio-ecological lens: a scoping review

“…One study included only females who had children or were pregnant [ 31 ]. Ten studies were conducted in in Australia [ 18 , 31 , 35 , 38 , 42 , 44 − 48 ], nine in the United States [ 32 – 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 49 − 51 ], and one in each of the Netherlands [ 52 ], Canada [ 41 ], the United Kingdom [ 53 ], sub-Saharan Africa [ 36 ] and South Africa [ 43 ].…”

“…Twenty-one journal articles, two policy submissions [ 45 , 46 ], and one discussion paper [ 47 ] were included in the review. Of the included journal articles, nine were qualitative [ 31 – 34 , 36 , 38 , 41 , 44 , 48 ], three quantitative [ 35 , 37 , 40 ], four narrative reviews [ 43 , 50 , 52 , 53 ], one systematic review [ 51 ], one qualitative evidence synthesis [ 42 ], one quantitative research proposal [ 39 ], one commentary [ 18 ], and one editorial [ 49 ]. A range of sampling methods were used in the 12 primary studies: four used purposive sampling [ 32 , 33 , 36 , 48 ]; three used a combination of purposive and convenience sampling [ 31 , 38 , 44 ]; three used voluntary response [ 34 , 37 , 40 ]; one used convenience sampling alone [ 35 ]; and one used relational sampling [ 41 ](p4).…”

“…Rather they posit social-cultural-systems-structural level factors are not reproductive coercion, despite acknowledging these are contributing factors which inhibit reproductive autonomy. Of the articles that did consider more than the interpersonal level, eight included definitions of reproductive coercion that were at least partially inclusive of the socio-cultural-systems-structural level [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 52 ], for example socio-cultural norms and practices, service provision and access, policies, law, and legislation that restrict reproductive autonomy. While four articles [ 33 , 36 , 41 , 52 ] fully considered the socio-cultural-systems-structural level, for example positioning reproductive coercion within a broader lens of reproductive justice, human and/or reproductive rights, or reproductive autonomy.…”

“…Of the articles that did consider more than the interpersonal level, eight included definitions of reproductive coercion that were at least partially inclusive of the socio-cultural-systems-structural level [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 49 , 52 ], for example socio-cultural norms and practices, service provision and access, policies, law, and legislation that restrict reproductive autonomy. While four articles [ 33 , 36 , 41 , 52 ] fully considered the socio-cultural-systems-structural level, for example positioning reproductive coercion within a broader lens of reproductive justice, human and/or reproductive rights, or reproductive autonomy. Reproductive coercion was also considered in one article to be multi-directional involving ‘downward’ coercion and ‘upward’ coercion [ 36 ] and occurs across a continuum of time and/or at different phases of the reproductive lifespans.…”

“…The theme Systems and structures describes organisational, institutional, structural and systems level forms of reproductive coercion and relates to Freedom from external forces to achieve reproductive autonomy . Ten of the articles in this review [ 33 , 34 , 36 , 41 , 43 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 53 ] identified and described system and structure level forms of reproductive coercion. These definitions of reproductive coercion move away from an individual as a perpetrator ( Individual external exertion of control over a woman’s reproductive autonomy ) to acknowledge that reproductive coercion can also be perpetrated by ‘organised criminal activity’ [ 53 ], faith-based organisations [ 46 ], healthcare organisations [ 33 , 41 ], and the state [ 41 , 46 , 49 , 52 ].…”