创伤、暴力和生殖权利。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY Journal of Trauma & Dissociation Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401
Heather L McCauley, Maria-Ernestina Christl, Anne P DePrince
{"title":"创伤、暴力和生殖权利。","authors":"Heather L McCauley, Maria-Ernestina Christl, Anne P DePrince","doi":"10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision (Davis, 2022). Early media coverage turned attention to whether socalled 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, 2022). 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, 2018). 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., 2018; Grace et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2010). 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., 2019; PettyJohn et al., 2021), and disproportionately affects marginalized and minoritized groups (Alexander et al., 2016; Holliday et al., 2017; McCauley et al., 2015). Yet, much remained unknown, particularly in terms of the structural determinants underpinning early patterns as well as the ways that broader family systems, communities, and governments may perpetrate reproductive coercion to maintain inequitable power systems. It was our sense at the time – and remains so today – that research would be critical to revealing the scope of the problem of reproductive coercion at this time of enormous policy change. Furthermore, we believed that trauma science and practice has an especially important role to play because of the field’s approach to understanding that individual, community, and system dynamics work together to shape risk for, response to, and healing from traumatic stress. Thus, this Special Issue of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation (JTD) explores the intersection of trauma, violence, and reproductive rights. We include six articles that present theory, literature review, and empirical data to advance discourse about trauma and reproductive JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & DISSOCIATION 2023, VOL. 24, NO. 4, 445–452 https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401","PeriodicalId":47476,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.\",\"authors\":\"Heather L McCauley, Maria-Ernestina Christl, Anne P DePrince\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision (Davis, 2022). Early media coverage turned attention to whether socalled 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, 2022). 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, 2018). 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., 2018; Grace et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2010). 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., 2019; PettyJohn et al., 2021), and disproportionately affects marginalized and minoritized groups (Alexander et al., 2016; Holliday et al., 2017; McCauley et al., 2015). Yet, much remained unknown, particularly in terms of the structural determinants underpinning early patterns as well as the ways that broader family systems, communities, and governments may perpetrate reproductive coercion to maintain inequitable power systems. It was our sense at the time – and remains so today – that research would be critical to revealing the scope of the problem of reproductive coercion at this time of enormous policy change. Furthermore, we believed that trauma science and practice has an especially important role to play because of the field’s approach to understanding that individual, community, and system dynamics work together to shape risk for, response to, and healing from traumatic stress. Thus, this Special Issue of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation (JTD) explores the intersection of trauma, violence, and reproductive rights. We include six articles that present theory, literature review, and empirical data to advance discourse about trauma and reproductive JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & DISSOCIATION 2023, VOL. 24, NO. 4, 445–452 https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401\",\"PeriodicalId\":47476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Trauma & Dissociation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision (Davis, 2022). Early media coverage turned attention to whether socalled 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, 2022). 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, 2018). 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., 2018; Grace et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2010). 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., 2019; PettyJohn et al., 2021), and disproportionately affects marginalized and minoritized groups (Alexander et al., 2016; Holliday et al., 2017; McCauley et al., 2015). Yet, much remained unknown, particularly in terms of the structural determinants underpinning early patterns as well as the ways that broader family systems, communities, and governments may perpetrate reproductive coercion to maintain inequitable power systems. It was our sense at the time – and remains so today – that research would be critical to revealing the scope of the problem of reproductive coercion at this time of enormous policy change. Furthermore, we believed that trauma science and practice has an especially important role to play because of the field’s approach to understanding that individual, community, and system dynamics work together to shape risk for, response to, and healing from traumatic stress. Thus, this Special Issue of the Journal of Trauma & Dissociation (JTD) explores the intersection of trauma, violence, and reproductive rights. We include six articles that present theory, literature review, and empirical data to advance discourse about trauma and reproductive JOURNAL OF TRAUMA & DISSOCIATION 2023, VOL. 24, NO. 4, 445–452 https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2023.2212401
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
6.10%
发文量
39
期刊最新文献
Correction. Presidential Editorial. The Detection of Invalid Responses Using the Dissociative Experiences Scale-V (DES-V). Dissociative Experiences Among Transgender Women: A Phenomenological Study. A Virtual Reality Simulation to Examine the Relationship Between Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms and Decision-Making in First Responders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1