Text

theses

This dissertation uses three papers on reproductive health care to examine a broader set of questions: to what extent can women exert control over their fertility? To what extent should they? A number of scholars have tackled the double-edged sword of reproductive control. Access to medical services and technologies like contraception, abortion, and prenatal care can allow individuals the bodily autonomy to shape their fertility and health in ways that align with their personal values and goals. Yet, these services and technologies often come with expectations about how to use them. These tensions have been well-documented in individual lived experience, policy, and broader culture. However, less research examines the twofold meaning of reproductive control in the context of medical institutions and health care – a gap which this work addresses. I look specifically at the attitudes and practices of clinicians who specialize in family planning and reproductive health care. In this dissertation, I examine their views about three areas of reproductive control: 1) the public health objective to prevent unintended pregnancy, 2) birth control – the technological tools that enable pregnancy planning, and 3) bodily risk management before and during pregnancy, particularly in relation to environmental contamination. In these three papers, I show that providers find reproductive control to be both fundamental and unevenly attainable. Importantly, the way they conceptualize such control vacillates between a focus on their patients’ reproductive autonomy and a focus on their patients’ reproductive responsibility. Moreover, as they weigh the competing priorities of autonomy and responsibility, providers frequently reproduce broader social inequalities around race, class, and gender.

ETD_8777

Ph.D.

Includes bibliographical references

by Lindsay Marie Stevens

doi:10.7282/T3JD517N

ETD doctoral

The author owns the copyright to this work.