User:Cmonica4/sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Norplant and Poverty== |
==Norplant and Poverty== |
||
Norplant can be understood as a predecessor of other [[sterilization]] methods of the early 20th century like [[tubal ligation]] and [[hysterectomy]] and has been framed as a solution to poverty--ordover. Soon after Norplant was approved by [[Food and Drug Administration]] in December 1990, an article was released by the ''[[Philadelphia Inquirer]]'' suggesting that Norplant would be a solution to "black poverty"--two online articles. The ''Philadelphia Inquirer'' article overshadowed Norplant's potential for granting women reproductive autonomy and suggested the reproductive abuse of poor women. The release of the article followed many policy proposals in which Norplant was at the center --Roberts.In the 1990's, poor women, especially poor women of color who would have previously been a "target for tubal ligation are now being singled out for Norplant" centered policies. Norplant appealed to liberals and conservatives "as a curative to poverty and crime and as means of curtailing welfare" --Ordover. At least five states, including Louisiana and Ohio have proposed financial incentives to women who receive public aid to use Norplant.--Political weekly None of these policy proposals have been enacted but these proposals demonstrate that the idea to impose Norplant on poor women's bodies is "alive and well"--Roberts. |
Norplant can be understood as a predecessor of other [[sterilization]] methods of the early 20th century like [[tubal ligation]] and [[hysterectomy]] and has been framed as a solution to poverty--ordover. Soon after Norplant was approved by [[Food and Drug Administration]] in December 1990, an article was released by the ''[[Philadelphia Inquirer]]'' suggesting that Norplant would be a solution to "black poverty"--two online articles. The ''Philadelphia Inquirer'' article overshadowed Norplant's potential for granting women reproductive autonomy and suggested the reproductive abuse of poor women. The release of the article followed many policy proposals in which Norplant was at the center --Roberts.In the 1990's, poor women, especially poor women of color who would have previously been a "target for tubal ligation are now being singled out for Norplant" centered policies. Norplant appealed to liberals and conservatives "as a curative to poverty and crime and as means of curtailing welfare" --Ordover. At least five states, including Louisiana and Ohio have proposed financial incentives to women who receive public aid to use Norplant.--Political weekly None of these policy proposals have been enacted but these proposals demonstrate that the idea to impose Norplant on poor women's bodies is "alive and well." However, in the early 1990's all states made Norplant available to poor women through [[Medicaid]] and some states like Tennessee enacted a law in 1993 that required public assistance be informed in paper of Norplant--Roberts. |
||
AFDC |
|||
==Norplant use in the judiciary== |
==Norplant use in the judiciary== |
||
Revision as of 03:58, 4 December 2012
Sperm and egg
The egg releases certain molecules that that are essential to guiding the sperm and these allow the surface of the egg to attach to the sperm's surface then the egg can absorb the sperm and fertilization begins.[1]
Norplant
In the early 1980's before Norplant was approved by FDA it was tested on women from Brazil, Bangladesh, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, and Egypt.[2]
Norplant has a long list of side effects and "like Depo-Provera, Norplant has been linked to osteoporosis, breast cancer, and cervical cancer." [3]
Norplant and Poverty
Norplant can be understood as a predecessor of other sterilization methods of the early 20th century like tubal ligation and hysterectomy and has been framed as a solution to poverty--ordover. Soon after Norplant was approved by Food and Drug Administration in December 1990, an article was released by the Philadelphia Inquirer suggesting that Norplant would be a solution to "black poverty"--two online articles. The Philadelphia Inquirer article overshadowed Norplant's potential for granting women reproductive autonomy and suggested the reproductive abuse of poor women. The release of the article followed many policy proposals in which Norplant was at the center --Roberts.In the 1990's, poor women, especially poor women of color who would have previously been a "target for tubal ligation are now being singled out for Norplant" centered policies. Norplant appealed to liberals and conservatives "as a curative to poverty and crime and as means of curtailing welfare" --Ordover. At least five states, including Louisiana and Ohio have proposed financial incentives to women who receive public aid to use Norplant.--Political weekly None of these policy proposals have been enacted but these proposals demonstrate that the idea to impose Norplant on poor women's bodies is "alive and well." However, in the early 1990's all states made Norplant available to poor women through Medicaid and some states like Tennessee enacted a law in 1993 that required public assistance be informed in paper of Norplant--Roberts. AFDC
Norplant use in the judiciary
Women's Health
Depo-Provera
Since its development starting in 1966, depo-provera has been "linked to cervical cancer, breast cancer (especially among younger women), and liver cancer, as well as long-term sterility (one study found that it took an average of thirteen months from the date of a woman's last injection for fertility to return). This list grew to include osteoporosis, endometrial cancer, prolonged menstrual bleeding (lasting weeks at a time and putting women at risk of pelvic inflammatory disease), weight gain, severe--even suicidal--depression, loss of libido, abdominal pains dizziness, headaches, hair loss, fatigue, nervousness, nausea, and potential hazards to breast-fed infants." [7]
References
- ^ Freedman, David H. (1992). “The Aggressive Egg”in DISCOVER. Biology & Medicine.
- ^ Ordover, Nancy (2003). “New Technologies, Old Politics: Norplant and Beyond,” from America Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism. 179-201 and Notes: University of Minnesota Press.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Ordover, Nancy (2003). “New Technologies, Old Politics: Norplant and Beyond,” from America Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism. 179-201 and Notes: University of Minnesota Press.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Roberts, Dorothy (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. Chapter 3: Pantheon Books.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link) - ^ Template:Cite article
- ^ Template:Cite article
- ^ Ordover, Nancy (2003). “New Technologies, Old Politics: Norplant and Beyond,” from America Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism. 179-201 and Notes: University of Minnesota Press.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)