Citation

McCauley HL, Christl ME, DePrince AP. J. Trauma Dissociation 2023; 24(4): 445-452.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401

PMID

37283181

Abstract

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision (Davis, Citation2022). Early media coverage turned attention to whether so-called state "trigger" laws outlawing abortion care made exceptions in cases of rape or incest. The media frame relegated abortion access to an issue after victimization and a matter specific to sexual violence (Cineas, Citation2022). We assessed things differently as researchers working on intimate violence from disciplinary perspectives that span clinical psychology, social epidemiology, and social work. After all, our fields had a name for forcing people to stay pregnant: reproductive coercion, defined as behavior "that interferes with the autonomous decision-making" about reproductive health (Grace & Anderson, Citation2018).

At the time of the Dobbs decision, research on reproductive coercion had been growing, documenting the prevalence and correlates of this form of intimate violence (Basile et al., Citation2018; Grace et al., Citation2022; Miller et al., Citation2010). A 2018 systematic review by Grace and Anderson outlined three interconnected forms of reproductive coercion: birth control sabotage (interfering with contraceptive and condom use), pregnancy coercion (threatening or pressuring a partner to get pregnant), and abortion coercion (threatening or pressuring a partner to get or not get an abortion). Empirical studies documented that reproductive coercion begins as early as adolescence (Hill et al., Citation2019; PettyJohn et al., Citation2021), and disproportionately affects marginalized and minoritized groups (Alexander et al., Citation2016; Holliday et al., Citation2017; McCauley et al., Citation2015).

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; *Violence; *Reproductive Rights