A recent message on one of the e-mail bulletin boards sent by a college student read, “I believe that the AIDS virus was developed in government labs for the purpose of controlling black folks.” In September 1990, Essence, an African American magazine with a circulation of 900,000, had as a lead article “AIDS: Is It Genocide?” In 1991, the New York Times quoted Clarence Page, African American columnist and Pulitzer prize winner: “You could call conspiracy theories about AIDS and drugs (...) fringe ideas, but they seem, to have a large following among the black intelligentsia. … [And] you find it at all levels.” In April 1992, Lorene Gary explained in Newsweek “Why it's not just paranoia.” In that same month, another New York Times article reported: “Bizarre as it may seem to most people, many black Americans believe that AIDS and the health measures used against it are part of a conspiracy to wipe out the black race.”4 In February 1992, Science quoted Peter Breggin, director of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry in Bethesda, Maryland, as saying that research on violence “cloaks the intention to identify problem black children and then … prescribe pacifying drugs.”. (shrink)

There isn’t much understanding in some marriages. My sister has six [children] and another has eight. I said to one of them that she shouldn’t have any more. And she said “What can I do? When my husband comes home drunk, he foxes me to sleep with him.” And that is what happens to a lot of women. And if the women don’t do it, the men hit them, or treat them badly. Or the men get jealous and think their (...) wives are with other men.—Rene, a 29-year old Peruvian womanGender violence is a major yet often underrecognized obstacle to reproductive choice. In both the abortion rights movement in the United States and the reproductive health movement globally, the “enemy” of self-determination and choice is usually seen as imposing from the top down. In the North, it is the government—through the courts, the legislature, and bureaucratic rulemaking—that threatens to “take away” women’s reproductive autonomy. The image is one of the public sphere invading that which is private—of the state interfering with a woman’s right to control her own body. (shrink)

There isn’t much understanding in some marriages. My sister has six [children] and another has eight. I said to one of them that she shouldn’t have any more. And she said “What can I do? When my husband comes home drunk, he foxes me to sleep with him.” And that is what happens to a lot of women. And if the women don’t do it, the men hit them, or treat them badly. Or the men get jealous and think their (...) wives are with other men.—Rene, a 29-year old Peruvian womanGender violence is a major yet often underrecognized obstacle to reproductive choice. In both the abortion rights movement in the United States and the reproductive health movement globally, the “enemy” of self-determination and choice is usually seen as imposing from the top down. In the North, it is the government—through the courts, the legislature, and bureaucratic rulemaking—that threatens to “take away” women’s reproductive autonomy. The image is one of the public sphere invading that which is private—of the state interfering with a woman’s right to control her own body. (shrink)

Due to a history of coerced sterilization, a federal Medicaid sterilization policy mandates that a specific consent form be signed by a patient at least thirty days prior to when the patient undergoes sterilization. However, in contemporary obstetrical practice, the Medicaid sterilization policy serves as a policy‐level barrier to autonomously desired care. We review the clinical and ethical implications of the current Medicaid sterilization policy. After discussing the utility and impact of waiting periods for other surgical procedures, we explore the (...) psychology of time required for decision‐making and consider scientific understanding of regret. We argue that the current Medicaid sterilization waiting period is clinically and ethically unjustifiable and that the policy ought to be revised in light of the goals, preferences, and concerns of the people most affected by it. While the need for continued protection against coercion remains, the current mandated waiting period does little to enforce the high‐quality shared decision‐making that is desired for sterilization counseling. (shrink)