Talk:Reproductive justice

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bluecrayon13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VeronicaNH.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): L-Ion-S, Meng1359, Vg661, Varshieee. Peer reviewers: Helenwh, Miss k8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skyedsf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Craey1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bfmwiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Visook. Peer reviewers: McEngl491.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qjbradley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmorr26, KiyaUAB21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abril.reyes1, Jess823.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brennacoleman. Peer reviewers: Samccarter.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Balance

This article needs to be more balanced (for example, men have access to far fewer forms of birth control and fewer reproductive choices) or, failing that, needs to be moved to Women's reproductive justice or Reproductive justice for women. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is an unbalance in the reproductive justice movement, wikipedia is not the place to try to correct that unbalance. NPOV does not say, "give all view points equal weight". NPOV says to give all views due weight. Therefore, if the largest organizations that deal with reproductive justice doesn't cover men's issues, then it isn't unbalanced to focus less on men's issues. Trumping up men's issues to make them seem equal to a much larger, notable movement would be unbalanced. That said, if we had notable and reliable sources to cite, it would seem fitting to cover those topics, but we do need to take into consideration weight issues. It all depends on our sources. For example, if our sources don't mention violence against men, then it is inappropriate to add that as an reproductive justice issue. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks to your edits, men's issues have been given zero weight in the article. I still think the article should be moved to more accurately reflect the content. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if this particular movement is just advancing the rights of women and ignores needs for improvements in sexual education and contraceptive access for men (e.g. vasectomy is much safer and lower cost permanent contraceptive option, but is underused in the US, so promoting that could advance the cause of reproductive rights, contraceptive choices, women's health, etc.). I am not saying that this particular concept/group/whatever does promote that, but it is a reasonable approach, and it is reasonable to assume that the reader interested in this article might also be interested in such approaches too. The article should at least link to movements that seek to extend contraceptive rights to men, or for equality of contraceptive rights. Zodon (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is unbalanced in favor of the point of view that reproductive rights are valid or just; that is, it gives zero weight at all to the opposing viewpoint. For example, the section on abortion clearly favors the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. (Contrast that with the article on contraceptive mandates, which takes an entirely different point of view. They cannot both be neutral at the same time.) Bwrs (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is incredibly unbalanced. While this article does have it's place, it is useless as written. Whenever the phrase "reproductive justice" is brought up, I always think of the quote, "One man's justice is another's injustice; one man's beauty another's ugliness; one man's wisdom another's folly.". Potatman (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is complete bullshit. Using terms like anti-choice instead of the neutral pro-life absolutely gives you away, whomever it is that wrote this article. It deserves deletion for being so laughably, irresponsibly biased in the direction of the pro-choice viewpoint. Shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.188.249 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. The article is woefully unbalanced. The term "reproductive justice" itself is such a loaded phrase that it leaves me skeptical that this article is salvageable. Perhaps if the article confined itself to describing the history and philosophy of the reproductive justice movement, including criticisms of the movement, it could become a balanced and useful article, but as it stands, it reads like a position paper. --Yaush (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Globalize

Is this just a USA thing? (In which case it should say so). It is quite similar to various other women's rights, reproductive rights, etc. movements. If this particular one is USA only, then needs to link to other similar movements in global context. If it is broader, then needs to expand to cover not just US issues/examples. Zodon (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The movement/framework is based in the USA, but you are right that it is related to other global issues and moments. I tried to clarify throughout the article that the specific movement is what is being described, rather than all issues that fall under reproductive justice. --Kmorr26 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)kmorr26 11:15, 4 April 2021

Addressing balance and global perspectives

As a student in Rice University’s Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class and a new member of the Wiki community, I want to introduce myself and discuss improvements I would like to make to this article. Although the existing information differentiates well between reproductive health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice, I want to focus on the latter and address the issues of perspective and international focus that have been highlighted as necessary improvements. I would first expand the short article introduction and then add information from international sources such as the United Nations to contribute to the balance and depth of each subsection. I want to examine the literature regarding reproductive justice to determine whether additional perspectives are actually neglected in this article, and then make the necessary amendments. I also want to include a subsection examining the reproductive justice movement in Latin America as a case study. I would appreciate any feedback you think might guide my aims and edits. As a new contributor, I could use all the advice you want to share with me. Thank you for your help! Nlaza (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that other perspectives are being woefully neglected. I hope you can address that honestly and effectively. --Yaush (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One fundamental problem is that the article seems conflicted as to whether it is about "reproductive justice" as a theoretical framework or if it is actually assessing levels of "reproductive justice" in the US and around the world. Some sentences here appear to not be about the reproductive justice movement, but just about abortion in the US. Wikipedia already has articles on Support for the legalization of abortion and Abortion in the United States (as well as many other countries); while this article may need to provide a bit of historical context, the focus should probably stay on the term "reproductive justice" specifically, and how different groups have deployed or contested the term. Thanks for your attention to this important topic. Khazar2 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think that there are some clear issues with this article. First off, there are some areas where citations are lacking, such as under the section titled "United Nations involvement." Secondly, it does seem at times that the article discusses abortion in the United States as it's own topic rather than reproductive justice. This discussion of reproductive justice would benefit from a more global, cross-cultural approach; a discussion of how reproductive justice functions in other parts of the world. This is mostly because the effectiveness of activism and the meanings associated with reproduction are culturally specific. Lastly, some of the language used in the article suggests a pro-choice bias. As others have pointed out. The use of the term "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life" definitely influences the way that a reader interprets this topic.Mpraml (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on my review of the article and its sources, it was my impression that it refers to the framework or movement called "reproductive justice" rather than issues of reproductive justice, which are numerous and global. I think there is a lack of global study on these issues that can be officially referred to as using the reproductive justice framework, simply because the framework is american in origin, but this is just my perspective. Kmorr26 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)kmorr26 10:48 April 4, 2021

A Suggestion for expanding the article

Hi,

This article would benefit from expansion on the subject of racially focused compulsory / forced / targeted sterilization programs. Worldwide, many countries have long histories of racialized compulsory sterilization programs that have had severe impacts on the lives of racialized women and people of all gender identities. The Wikipedia article on compulsory sterilization covers a lot of this subject matter (which I recently linked to), however a summary of those issues in this article would be insightful. The existing section of the article that covers abuse of female prisoners is a good start. This issue is relevant to the broader picture of reproductive justice, and there is a vast amount of research material easily available regarding the subject.Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressing LGBTQ+ reproductive rights

I propose the addition of an LGBTQ section to this article in order to identify the issues LGBTQ persons face in seeking reproductive care. Specifically, LGBTQ persons are often excluded from family planning bills which allow free access to STI screening, contraceptives and sex education. Varsha will write about what family planning issues LGBTQ people face. Yelena will address the limitations of access to reproductive health services by the LGBTQ community. Monica will add a section about sexually transmitted diseases, apart from US prisons, to include more information about the impacts on family planning in both general and LGBTQ population. Varinder will add a section about the role of men in reproductive justice since the article focuses mainly on women. Resources for the proposed edits will come from secondary sources found on PubMed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meng1359 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

L-Ion-S (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I plan on addressing this section. I hope to expand on specific bills which are called "family planning" bills but offer free STI screenings to only heterosexual couples. Specifically, I will be contributing information about the FamilyPACT program in California, which was established in 1996. The programs aims to help men and women, who have income 200% of the federal poverty limit, plan for children and maintain reproductive health.

It currently excludes men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) through the provision that users must have a medical need for family planning services, not accounting for LGBT men and women who plan to have biological children.

The CDC identifies gay and bisexual men at an increased risk to STDs including HIV. STDs can impair reproductive health. Varshieee (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to make additional changes to this section. I believe the amount of information about STI transmission in this population is excessive. I would like to cut out some of the details. Additionally, I would like to merge this section with the other section pertaining to LGBTQ+ access to reproductive care. Varshieee (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

References

CP133 Peer Reviews

The following constructive comments are reviews for the recent edits made by our fellow classmates and designed to help our classmates with the editing process.

"Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…" The edits pertaining to the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services utilize a mixture of verifiable secondary and primary sources that tie well to the goals the CP133 students made prior to the edits. Secondary sources included data from the CDC, Family Pact, and literature review articles. For example, the statements about providers’ hetereonormative attitudes towards patients was cited with a systematic review published in the BMC International Health and Human Rights journal. Another good example of citing a journal article reviewing existing publications is seen within the discussion about MSM having elevated STI risk compared to MSW populations. On the other hand, citing primary literature should be avoided. Some original research articles were cited, such as the statement about the limited health research for LGBTQ community. Another example of citing primary sources is the comment made about LGBT youth being at a higher risk to contract STIs and HIV. Helenwh (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…" After going through the edits made to the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services, there appears to be no evidence of plagiarism or copy right violation. I ran the article through two Wiki-approved copyright checkers (Earwig's Copyvio Detector and Wikipedia Duplication Detector) and it showed no signs of plagiarism. I made sure to remove numbers (since those can flag as exact matches) and compared full text pdf versions of the cited articles from the section with the student revisions. There were some exact matches in phrases that could not be changed, such as "men who have sex with men (MSM) or women who have sex with women (WSW)." Although there were some flags of phrase matches (greater than 5 words match) when the wiki article as a whole was run through the comparison programs, the matches were not in the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services.Miss k8 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…" Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view for the most part. I only have a couple of suggestions. 1.To L-Ion-S: “In addition to poor educational standards…” sounds somewhat subjective. I suggest changing the word “poor” to “lower” or "low" instead, and provide supporting evidence such as X number of hours in training as compared to the standard Y number of hours in training. 2.To Meng1359: “There is strong evidence that…” The word “strong” sounds somewhat subjective. I suggest changing this part to “Several studies (or X numeber of studies) have shown that…” 3. To Meng1359: minor edit needed "and about half as likely to a condom during their last instance of sexual intercourse" is missing the word "have" a condom. Overall I thought the edit is well written, and almost every statement is provided with data/statistics to support them. The added section “LBGTQ+ access to reproductive health services” definitely has made this wikipedia page more comprehensive. Finally I suggest the group to edit section "HIV positive women" first 2 paragraphs because it lacks citations and seems biased.Lisha.Deng (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisha.Deng (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…"
The majority of the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. I do have a few minor suggestions regarding the formatting of citations:

1. To L-Ion-S: In citation 57, capitalize only the first letter of each word in the journal title. → Done. L-Ion-S (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
2. To Varshieee: In citation 60, consider citing the direct source for the statistic rather than the Wikipedia "Infertility" page.

Cp133 student (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations

I notice there are very few citations for the information in the HIV in women section. I am planning on deleting the section unless strong evidence to support the claims made are added to the article. Varshieee (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes made about Loretta Ross

Hi there!

We just made some changes to the external link corrected to Loretta Ross' biography in Smith College website, we moved it to the External Link section. We removed the external link from Ross' name and will add the Wikipedia link for her page when we're done drafting it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syasyanasaruddin (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Loretta J. Ross.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2019

Hi there. I am going to be adding a section under the "International" heading regarding reproductive justice in Canada, specifically coerced sterilizations of Indigenous women in Canada. This contribution is being done for a university class project. Bfmwiki (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback for Recent Section 2 Edits

Great job on the article! I appreciated the expanded discussion into the intersectionality of reproductive justice and disability and immigration. It was clear to read and presented in a way that felt neutral and credible. It would be great to continue building on what you have, to include at least fifteen scholarly sources and further explain how these issues connect. Also, adding more images and links would help with increasing your traffic and making your article easier to read through. For links, you could think about immigration of disability related pages. Also, it would help to edit the table of contents to match your section headers. In terms of the most important thing to improve this article, I think it would be expanding what you have, to include more viewpoints and background information. Look forward to seeing your final contribution!Heatherkong (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC) I think that these sections are great additions! Adding more information, especially from scholarly sources that discuss the topic outside of the view of the United States, would be a great next step. Jkolli (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I also think that continuing to expand what is already here is a great way to move forward. Both of the new sections (re: immigration and disability) are very important contributions to the article. I would consider adding more information on the state of reproductive justice for immigrants and their communities, as well as the impacts of immigration policy. In addition, you could also include a brief mention of the sterilization of disabled people in U.S. prisons, from the "See also" article in the Disability and reproductive justice section. So far so good. - MBJAnderson (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

JTandon-Edits

The page looks great and is very comprehensive already, but it looks like it could use some edits especially in regards to clarifying the movement in a human rights framework. Here are some key sections I would suggest adding: “U.S Foreign Policy”: I want to make suggestions in this section to include commentary on the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and how this will affect the reproductive justice movement. This section right now does not mention Roe v. Wade at all, and I think that discussing how this ties into reproductive justices and injustices, especially for marginalized communities. Here is what I would want to write in” “In 1973, Roe v. Wade ruled that the constitution of the United States granted the right to have an abortion, however, this Supreme Court ruling was overturned on June 24th, 2022. This gives states the power in determining whether to regulate or ban abortion, and thirteen states in the US already have trigger laws put into place to automatically ban abortions in the first and second trimesters. According to the definition of “Reproductive Justice” being the complete freedom and well-being of women and girls, the overturning of Roe removes the right to make decisions in their reproductive health. Though the 1973 Roe decision did not adequately address issues of abortion access or reproductive oppression, the complete overturning of Roe v. Wade rolls back the reproductive justice movement even further by removing the right to choice in regards to abortion.” “Origin”: I want to expand more on the history of reproductive injustices towards African American women, especially in pre-Civil War eras. Right now, the article does a good job at discussing forced sterilization and birth control on women of color, but I want to finish painting the full picture of reproductive injustice in the US. “In the pre-Civil War era, there were many cases of forced medical experimentation and sexual assault on slave women. Dr. James Marion Sims, who is widely honored for his dedicated career to women’s health, would perform experimental surgery on his slaves for years, subjecting them to painful vaginal surgeries and addicting them to drugs such as morphine. This is one of the many instances of White physicians exploiting Black bodies and stripping them of their reproductive freedom. Furthermore, slave-masters would sexually assault their slave women, who they saw as both their childbearers and their workers, for economic profit.” “Access”: I want to discuss how reproductive injustices specifically disproportionately affect women of color, and I want to relate this back to institutionalized racism and social determinants of health. “Reproductive injustices, such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, disproportionately affects women of color and low-income communities. According to the CDC, there is a 33% estimated increase in pregnancy-related deaths among Black women in the case of a total abortion ban. There is also a two times higher birth rate for teens (ages 15-19) among Black females compared to white females. Finally, over 75% of abortions are sought by low-income patients (less than $47,000 annual income). According to the human rights framework, both the choice and access to abortion are essential for all women, especially marginalized communities that would be negatively affected without it. Overall: I want to briefly also insert several of the reproductive justice organizations that we talked about in class. “Grassroot organizations such as SisterSong, Black Mamas, and the Afiya Center provide educational resources, support, and empowerment for women of color in the reproductive justice movement. There are also telemedicine companies that assist in self-managed abortions by pill, such as Choix, Just the Pill, and Hey Jane; these help women everywhere have the choice and access to their own reproductive freedom. Other supporting organizations include the Repro Legal Defense Fund, which provides legal support for self-managed abortions, the NAF Hotline, which provides financial assistance and safe abortion referrals, and the Brigid Alliance, which provides travel assistance for abortions.” JasmineTea239659 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/overturning-Roe-abortion-bans-disproportionately-burden-traditionally-marginalized-groups

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/what-are-the-implications-of-the-overturning-of-roe-v-wade-for-racial-disparities/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2792687

The above are articles that I used in my research, and also articles that have a lot of information on how overturning Roe v. Wade disproportionately affects marginalized communities, and how it ties into reproductive injustices. JasmineTea239659 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meimulee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Meimulee (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 20 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angiesyz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ArlenSanchez.

— Assignment last updated by Aksgpp3131 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Making improvements in segmentation, making sure all subtitles all in relation to the main titles, and making minor adjustments to avoid confusion. 2. If possible, I may shorten the lead section a bit, and cut some unnecessary words to make it more succinct. 3. Rewording in the sake of appropriateness: 1) lead section -- LGB+ people to LBGT+ population; 2) content -- LGBT+ people to LBGT+ population 4. Augmentation for "Interventions addressing reproductive injustice" section 5. Opening a new section to present some renowned non-profit international or US-based organizations that devote effort to reproductive justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angiesyz (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)