







































Aisthesis      Volume 16,  20258

Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review
by Hillary Sotomayor

 Reproductive coercion is a form of abuse 
in which one partner uses threats, violence, or 
manipulation to enforce decisions on the other 
partner’s reproductive health and bodily autonomy. 
!is could include tampering with birth control, 
manipulating or threatening a partner into having 
sex without contraception, or withholding money to 
prevent a partner from exercising their reproductive 
rights. Reproductive coercion can happen to anyone, 
but it is most commonly perpetrated against women. 
It currently occurs to one in 20 women in the United 
States, with a higher prevalence amongst women of 
color, which correlates with the racial and ethnic 
disparities of the country. More than 80% of women 
report fearing for their safety a"er experiencing 
pregnancy coercion (D’Angelo et al., 2024). Despite 
its harmful prevalence, the term, “reproductive 
coercion,” is not explicitly de#ned in law. Although 
it can be prosecuted through other legal methods, 
the absence of a clear de#nition has undermined 
the issue, leaving survivors without adequate legal 
and societal recognition. In this paper, I investigate 
the intricacies of reproductive coercion in the cycle 
of abuse, the #ght for reproductive justice, and the 
history of reproductive coercion in medical settings 
to argue that the lack of an explicit de#nition for 
“reproductive coercion” results in minimization of 
the issue, damaging legal response to these cases, 
and inadvertent support for the toxic culture that 
keeps this form of abuse prevalent.

Background
 In February of 2013, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or ACOG, published 
Committee Opinion No. 554, where healthcare 
providers were recommended to screen women 
and adolescent girls for intimate partner violence 
and reproductive and sexual coercion (American 
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2013). 
Intimate partner violence, a form of abuse or 
aggression that occurs in an intimate relationship 
(CDC, 2024), has been linked to reproductive 
coercion, which is de#ned as “behavior intended to 
maintain power and control in a relationship related 

to reproductive health.” Reproductive coercion has 
been de#ned within medical parameters; however, 
an explicit de#nition for reproductive coercion in 
American legal frameworks has proven to be more 
complex. Cases of abuse, rape, and other forms of 
intimate partner violence are severely underreported 
(RAINN, 2020). An observed factor that adds to this 
underreporting is the historical context of abuse in 
the law. 
 One early marker dates back to 1736; jurist 
Sir Matthew Hale of England had declared that 
marriage was an established form of permanent 
consent that could not be redacted (Taub, 2022.). 
!is colonial, misogynistic way of thought, although 
now outwardly condemned, still has perpetuated 
a culture where rape and abuse are dismissed, 
especially in the case of an intimate relationship. 
Although this declaration had taken place in English 
common law, its relevance is notable, as it has been 
transitioned and applied to serve as a foundation 
for the United States law, as well as other countries 
under Great Britain’s colonialist rule (Gaxiola and 
Litwak Law Group, 2023). 
 !e diminution of sexual violence is re$ected 
in a study published by the National Institutes of 
Medicine which demonstrated that women were less 
likely to acknowledge their experience as rape when 
their perpetrator had been an intimate partner (Ja%e 
et al., 2013). !ese #ndings correspond with historical 
and legal contexts where abuse is criminalized, yet 
there is still ambiguity in what society and the courts 
consider “abuse.” !is leaves abusive behaviors, 
like reproductive coercion, unrecognized by both 
United States policy, and most devastatingly, victims 
of reproductive coercion themselves. Nonetheless, 
other provisions against this form of abuse and 
sexual violence have still taken place to protect 
survivors and care for them #nancially and legally.
 !e Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, 
is federal legislation with the objective of providing 
legal and #nancial support to end domestic violence, 
sexual violence, dating violence, and stalking 
for all victims. It is signi#cant to recognize the 
implementation and the policy that VAWA provides, 



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  20259

as well as its possible shortcomings, in order to assess 
the current impacts and identify new ways to further 
VAWA’s e%ect. With regards to VAWA’s e%ect on 
reproductive coercion, its implementation has been 
vital as it established domestic abuse as a federal 
crime, and it has funded provisions and movements 
to address the unspoken crisis of abuse and assist 
survivors. 
 VAWA was instituted by statute when passed 
by Congress and signed into law by President 
Bill Clinton in 1994 with the immense support of 
organizations such as the National Organization 
for Women (NOW) and the Rape, Abuse, & Incest 
National Network (RAINN). !e e%ect of VAWA on 
sexual and domestic violence, typically associated 
with reproductive coercion, can be re$ected 
by statistics. According to the National Crime 
Victimization study from the National Bureau of 
Justice, overall domestic violence rates dropped a"er 
1993, especially intimate partner violence, a type of 
abuse that is correlated with reproductive coercion. 
Figure 1 below depicts the trendlines that illustrate 
this data. Although VAWA may not be the only 
cause of this trend, it most likely correlates with this 
decline, considering that the establishment of the 
law re$ected public views shi"ing on the topic of 
abuse, making it more e&cient to protect victims and 
prevent violence. In addition, VAWA likely increased 
awareness of this issue, which highlights the e%ect of 
labelling abuse both legally and socially.

Fig 1. Domestic Violence Rates from 1993 to 2012. Leins, 
C. (2015). Sobering stats for domestic violence awareness 
month. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.
com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/09/sobering-stats-
for-domestic-violence-awareness-month

 !e Violence Against Women Act, funded 
federally by the Department of Justice and Human 
and Health Resources, protects all survivors of 
violence regardless of gender, age, race, sexuality, and 
documentation status. It aims to assist underserved 
populations, such as the LGBTQ+ community, 
women of color, Native American communities, 
and immigrants. In court, VAWA is legally enforced 
by imposing penalties on o%enders. For instance, 
violations under sections 2261, 2261A, and 2262 can 
result in the perpetrator facing a maximum sentence 
of life in prison depending on the severity of harm 
done to the victim (United States Attorney’s O&ce, 
2023). Furthermore, it is also implemented with 
grant programs to provide funding for domestic 
violence shelters, courts, tribes, rape crisis centers, 
and children’s centers. VAWA also legally requires 
#nancial compensation for victims, providing direct 
support to individuals. 
 !e implementation of VAWA has undeniably 
brought the topic of abuse to light, but it remains 
an o"en-avoided subject. Reproductive coercion is 
an especially pervasive form of abuse that does not 
receive adequate public or legal attention. Although 
the Violence Against Women Act has provided legal 
framework and de#nitions to address this matter, 
the term “reproduction coercion” is not explicitly 
de#ned in VAWA’s policy. When de#ning domestic 
violence, the term “coercion” is added to indicate that 
it is a form of abuse. !e 2022 VAWA reauthorization 
policy states domestic violence includes “the use or 
attempted use of physical abuse or sexual abuse, or 
a pattern of any other coercive behavior committed, 
enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and 
control over a victim” (Congressional Research 
Service, 2022). When investigating the term 
“coercion” in law, it is de#ned as “threats of serious 
harm to or physical restraint of any person” (Code 
of Federal Regulations Title 22, 2024). “Criminal 
coercion” is speci#ed to mean “threatening to 
commit a criminal o%ense, accuse anyone of a 
criminal o%ense, or take or withhold action as an 
o&cial with purpose to unlawfully restrict another’s 
freedom of action” (Legal Information Institute), 
and is classi#ed as a misdemeanor. 
 Because reproductive coercion is not explicitly 
de#ned in federal policy like VAWA, it is addressed in 
court with a more complex methodology. Typically, 
reproductive coercion can be prosecuted under the 
statues of domestic abuse, sexual assault, criminal 



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  202510

coercion, and even healthcare fraud. For instance, 
a common form of reproductive coercion that takes 
place is one party refusing to use contraception 
without the other’s consent. !is can be seen in the 
case, R. v. Kirkpatrick, a case brought to the Canadian 
Supreme Court in which the complainant argued 
that the defendant, Kirkpatrick, had violated her 
bodily autonomy due to him not wearing a condom 
despite only consenting to sex with contraception. 
In turn, Kirkpatrick was charged with sexual assault 
(Supreme Court of Canada). Although not in the 
United States, this Canadian case demonstrates the 
legal framework in which birth control sabotage was 
recognized in some international contexts as a form 
of abuse. !e action of tampering with contraception 
to manipulate another party falls under the term, 
“stealthing,” which was #rst considered a form of rape 
in the state of California and could be prosecuted as 
such under California Penal Code 261. Since then, 
other states, such as New Jersey, have adopted such 
statutes (John D. Rogers Law, 2023).
 Ultimately, reproductive coercion remains a 
neglected issue, despite the strides that policies like 
VAWA have made to address barriers to reproductive 
healthcare access and protect reproductive rights. It 
is imperative to recognize issues such as these that 
remain prevalent, as it re$ects how toxic the topic 
of abuse and violence remains, even with e%orts to 
change it.

Understanding Abuse through Unintended 
Pregnancy
 Reproductive coercion exists in abusive 
relationships with a pattern of intimate partner 
violence, which is the abuse and aggression that 
occurs in a romantic relationship. According to 
“Recent reproductive coercion and unintended 
pregnancy among female family planning clients,” 
a survey study administered in Pennsylvania, 79% 
of women that had reported pregnancy had also 
reported intimate partner violence (Miller et al., 
2014). !e study re$ects the devastating reality 
of di%erent forms of abuse overlapping with the 
prevalence of reproductive coercion due to the 
power imbalances and bodily harm that occur in 
these relationships; this, in turn, can o"en distort 
a victim’s perception of their situation, making it 
harder for them to recognize the abuse and their 
need for help.

 According to research by Moulton et al. (2022), 
some female survivors of reproductive coercion 
had “trivialized, minimized, or blamed themselves 
for coercive reproductive behavior they had 
experienced” and did not recognize themselves as 
victims. Survivors’ interview answers revealed “they 
felt if they identi#ed as a victim, they would have 
to confront their partner and partner’s behavior” 
(Moulton et al., 2022). !is logic that most survivors 
adopt typically derives from manipulations of their 
abuser, as survivors may be made to feel a certain 
way in order for the abuser to maintain control. 
Psychologically, if a victim does not believe they #t 
the socially accepted “trauma model” of abuse, this 
may consequently lead them to blame themselves and 
feel shame to discredit their traumatic experiences 
as abuse (Mathur, 2010). As aforementioned in this 
paper, societal perceptions of abuse are shaped by the 
language within U.S. law and everyday conversations. 
Furthermore, accepting one’s role as a mother no 
matter the circumstance is typically implanted in 
most women due to it being a long-standing cultural 
expectation.
 To investigate this relationship between 
established frameworks and reproductive coercion, 
the dilemma of unintended pregnancy was 
examined. A pregnancy deemed as mistimed or 
unwanted is de#ned as an unintended pregnancy. 
Unintended pregnancy is most prevalent amongst 
young, unmarried, economically oppressed 
people of color. It is signi#cant to note unintended 
pregnancy is strongly associated with abuse. 
A CDC study, “Unintended pregnancy among 
adult women exposed to abuse or household 
dysfunction during their childhood,” discovered 
that across a population of 1193 women, more 
than 45% of women claimed their #rst pregnancy 
was unintended, and 65.8% of those had reported 
exposure to two or more types of childhood abuse or 
household dysfunction (Dietz, 1999). Exploring this 
framework with a reproductive justice lens exposes 
how the practices utilized to prevent unintended 
pregnancy are inadequate, as they fail to account 
for the systematic racism of establishments, victim-
blaming, and other practices that fail to understand 
an individual’s unique experiences of pregnancy. In 
“Critiquing the Unintended Pregnancy Framework,” 
Auerbach (2023) determined that feelings towards 



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  202511

unintended pregnancy are complex, as some 
persons experiencing unintended pregnancy simply 
accepted it due to the inaccessibility to contraception 
or abortion resources. Additionally, the underlying 
assumption that it is a woman’s responsibility to 
accept the role of a mother when she fails to prevent 
pregnancy remains prevalent (Auerbach, 2023). 
!is societal perception appears to correspond 
with the fact that many survivors of reproductive 
coercion accept their pregnancy because they 
discredit their abuse. !e study also emphasized 
that the way healthcare providers worded questions 
regarding pregnancy and planning towards patients 
is important since it diminished the possibility of 
patients feeling disrespected or pressured to use 
certain methods of contraception. In other words, 
because there is implicit bias against women of color 
in healthcare, emphasis must be placed on how 
questions are asked to make the patient (speci#cally 
women of color) feel more comfortable (Auerbach, 
2023). !is highlights how essential it is to take 
language into consideration. In policy, the lack of 
a de#nition for “reproductive coercion,” results 
in survivors minimizing their abuse, as it is more 
unregulated than other forms of abuse. !e language 
used when describing the socially accepted “trauma 
model” of an abuse victim can also lead survivors to 
discredit their abuse if they feel they do not #t the 
de#nition. In addition to providing evidence for 
this phenomenon, this study also recommends that 
healthcare providers be mindful with vocabulary 
and ask open-ended questions in order to showcase 
respect towards patient autonomy and help prevent 
unintended pregnancy. 
 Another severe form of abuse that is also 
associated with stigmatizing language, sexual abuse, 
has been shown to correlate and share similarities 
with reproductive coercion. A study published by 
the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found 
that women who experienced intimate partner rape-
related pregnancy were signi#cantly more likely to 
have experienced reproductive coercion during or 
a"er the assault (Basile, 2018). Both reproductive 
coercion and rape can be considered unreported 
crimes due to the strong correlation with one 
another, as they are violations of bodily autonomy 
a%ected by social stigma and the direct and implied 
prevalence in legal frameworks. It reinforces the idea 

that de#ning and discussing these crimes is necessary 
to build a safe environment where survivors feel 
validated and to improve the support and response 
provided to survivors.
 !e traumatic e%ects of rape and reproductive 
coercion o"en a%ect parenthood.  Willie et al. (2020) 
studied 296 pregnant adolescent females to observe 
the e%ect reproductive coercion had on the children 
born from these pregnancies and on the parenting of 
the young women studied. Age, gender, household 
income, education, and relationship length were 
all factors controlled in the study, and results were 
self-reported by participants. !e one #nding 
that remained signi#cant was that experiencing 
reproductive coercion was signi#cantly associated 
with lower parenting competency (Willie et al., 
2020). Trauma in$uencing parental behaviors can 
be de#ned as the reasoning behind this #nding, 
since this occurs with mothers’ relationship with 
children born from a rape-related pregnancy. A 
qualitative study by Ee and Blokland (2019) on the 
complex relationship between a mother and child 
linked to her traumatic experiences also supports 
this statement, as one #nding noted, “!ey see their 
child as dirty or bad and themselves as damaged or 
dirty or someone you have to be ashamed of. And at 
the same time, they have to shape their motherhood” 
(Ee and Blokland, 2019). It is imperative to recognize 
the lifelong e%ect of abuse on survivors, because 
without the proper help or recognition, this is how 
the cycle of abuse persists. 
 To understand the impact of reproductive 
coercion, one must observe the overlap other 
forms of abuse have with it. Abuse is an issue that 
has been addressed through the implementation of 
laws and through the transitioning cultural norms. 
However, more discussions are needed to #nd 
improved solutions that evolve with di%erent cycles 
of abuse in order to abolish the cycle. Understanding 
revictimization is di&cult but necessary because 
the survivors that movements and policies like the 
Violence Against Women Act aim to protect must 
also aim to prevent the development of abusive 
behaviors in people who may become abusers.

Fight for Reproductive Justice 
 !e Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution states that, “no State shall deprive any 



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  202512

person of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 
the equal protection of the laws” (National Archives). 
It is what protects the constitutional right to bodily 
autonomy and ensures all individuals are equally 
protected. Reproductive autonomy falls under 
the term bodily autonomy, for it is one’s power 
to control decisions regarding their reproductive 
health, such as contraception use, pregnancy, and 
family planning. !e concept is typically presented 
in the #ght for women’s reproductive rights. In a 
post-Roe world, the topic of abortion is especially 
polarizing, overtaking discussions of reproductive 
justice, with the media depicting the intense protests 
and heated debates surrounding it. However, what 
the media does not always cover or consider are the 
broader concerns relating to reproductive rights, 
such as failures in the teaching of sex education and 
reproductive coercion. !e lack of discussion around 
these topics in reproductive health underscores the 
point that reproductive coercion remains a primarily 
unregulated concept in American policy. 
 Many reproductive justice advocates, like 
the Combahee River Collective, utilize the 
concept of intersectionality in e%orts to advocate 
for reproductive rights and bring awareness to 
underrepresented social movements. !e concept of 
intersectionality highlights how one’s multiple self-
identities regarding race, sexuality, class, etc. relate to 
the societal and systemic oppressive forces that work 
against them. Reproductive justice is founded on the 
right to have a child under an individual’s chosen 
conditions, the right not to have a child through 
an individual’s chosen means, and the right to raise 
children in an environment without violence (Ross, 
2017). Although reproductive justice intersects 
with the legal advocacy and healthcare services, 
it showcases the dilemma of mainly focusing the 
rhetoric of women’s and reproductive rights on Roe 
v. Wade, a landmark legal provision in American 
history. Roe v. Wade is typically conceived as a 
protection of individual rights; however, it diverts 
attention from properly addressing other factors 
relating to the right of abortion, like reproductive 
coercion. 
 !e purpose of passing of Roe v. Wade was to 
ensure that the government could not take away a 

pregnant person’s individual right to an abortion 
in respect to the 14th Amendment. It also made 
access to this form of healthcare accessible and safe 
(Center for Reproductive Rights). It is signi#cant 
to note that abortion is a form of healthcare, but it 
became polarized as it became a systemic weapon to 
control women’s bodies. !is is shown in the media 
coverage of abortion through a study performed by 
the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion 
Laws, in which it was found that 77% of informative 
articles about abortion were written by political and 
news writers rather than public health reporters. 
Furthermore, it was discovered that political and 
news writers were four times less likely to discuss 
medical research in said articles (Larkin, 2020). !is 
emphasizes the fact that the #ght for reproductive 
rights is o"en weaponized to maintain control over 
women’s bodies. Former Supreme Court Judge, Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg, emphasized this idea as well, adding 
how this le" Roe vulnerable to reinterpretation, and 
the overturning of the policy would only further 
demonstrate how it was never about a woman’s 
choice, considering it would be detrimental to 
women of poorer #nancial backgrounds whose 
choices would become very limited.
 A post-Roe nation has also demonstrated the 
phenomena of criminalizing pregnancy. According 
to MSNBC, “more than 200 pregnant women have 
been prosecuted a"er the overturning of Roe v. Wade, 
which is the largest number of annual cases recorded 
in history” (MSNBC, 2024). !e report emphasizes 
that if a woman poses risk to her pregnancy, she could 
be prosecuted, as seen in the case of Amari Marsh, 
who was charged with murder a"er experiencing a 
miscarriage. !e criminalization of healthcare has 
now led to the unjust criminalization of women. 
Cases like this demonstrate how a woman’s right to 
bodily autonomy is already systemically disregarded, 
which is especially alarming since it demonstrates 
how reproductive coercion can survive in such 
a toxic regulatory environment. !e womb has 
become state property, enforcing the concept of fetal 
personhood, and normalizing control of women’s 
bodies.
 Searching for “reproductive coercion” on the 
internet does not yield as many articles and polarizing 
discussion boards as “Roe v. Wade,” even though 



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  202513

reproductive coercion is directly tied to abortion, 
as controlling another’s right to an abortion is a 
form of reproductive coercion. While the passionate 
debate surrounding Roe v. Wade stands as a separate 
valid argument, it is imperative to highlight how 
violations of bodily autonomy also occur every day 
in abusive relationships. While abuse and intimate 
partner violence tends to be seen as an individualistic 
issue, addressing it as a collective societal concern 
to integrate topics such as reproductive coercion 
into legislature as we do for abortion would further 
validate survivors and advance reproductive justice 
movements.

Reproductive Healthcare Disguised as Control
 Although exploring reproductive coercion on an 
individualistic level is bene#cial, it is also imperative 
to address how individuals in positions of power have 
abused populations using reproductive coercion. 
!roughout the 20th century in the United States, 
eugenics laws were established across 32 states with 
a means to control “feebleminded” individuals that 
were considered un#t to become parents (National 
Human Genome Research Institute, 2022). !e term 
“eugenics,” coined by Francis Galton, essentially 
refers to the study and practice of manipulating 
population reproduction to increase prominence 
of traits that are considered “desirable” (Oxford). 
!e advocacy of this philosophy was re$ected in 
the forced and coerced sterilization of marginalized 
groups, especially women of color and people with 
#nancially unstable backgrounds.
 In the 1978 case of Madrigal v. Quilligan, ten low-
income Mexican American women #led a lawsuit 
against the Los Angeles Medical Center, stating that 
they had been coerced into undergoing sterilization 
before, during, or a"er labor. !e women had based 
their argument on Roe v. Wade, but had lost due to 
the court determining the sterilizations were simply a 
misunderstanding of poor communication (Library 
of Congress); nonetheless, the case highlights the 
pre-existing systematic biases that oppress minority 
populations to excuse the blatant violation of human 
rights in the medical #eld.
 In the 1990s, long-acting reversible 
contraceptives became more abundant than 
sterilizations; nonetheless, they were still utilized as 

a method to enforce eugenics and control women’s 
bodies. Legislators in thirteen states provided 
#nancial incentives as a means to coerce women 
into receiving Norplant, a long-acting reversible 
contraceptive. A legislative bill was proposed in 
Texas to incentivize women with $300 to receive the 
contraception, and a bonus of $200 if she was able to 
retain it for #ve years (Gold, 2014). !e absurdity of 
this proposal lies within the fact that “reproductive 
coercion” is not clearly de#ned in law to this day, 
yet lawmakers attempted to codify it into policy two 
decades ago.
 Even though Norplant was discontinued in 2002, 
long-acting reversible contraception methods are 
still advised to poorer women and women of color, 
speci#cally Black, Latina, and Native American 
women. Emily Mann’s report, “Agency-Without 
Choice: !e Visual Rhetorics of Long-Acting 
Reversible Contraception Promotion,” describes 
how most women of color tend to be more hesitant 
in receiving said methods of contraception despite 
being the most “at-risk” population. Notably, this 
factor could certainly be accounted for by the deep 
history of forced sterilization these populations had 
faced. Nonetheless, promoting accessibility to long-
term birth control is needed to educate populations 
on contraception and family planning. !e article 
had analyzed multiple ads that attempt to do so, 
and found that certain methods promoted long-
term contraception better than others. For instance, 
the Contraception CHOICE Project provided 
participants with genetic counseling on di%erent 
forms of contraception and had participants make 
their own decision at the end, giving “the appearance 
of facilitating a personal, individualized choice;” 
however, it was implied that the counseling sessions 
promoted long-acting reversible contraception 
methods more e%ectively (Mann, 2018).
 Alongside Mann’s analysis, statistical data 
regarding contraceptive use is a strong indicator 
of how the prevalent use of reproduction coercion 
in health institutions has impacted populations 
of women of color, speci#cally Black women, 
today. Figure 2 below depicts the use of multiple 
contraceptive methods across di%erent races and 
ethnicities.



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  2025

Figure 2. Contraceptive Use by Race and Ethnicity. 
National Black Women's Reproductive Agenda. (n.d.). 
Contraceptive equity – In our own voice. https://blackrj.
org/our-causes/contraceptive-equity/

 !e data illustrates how Black women utilize 
contraception at lower rates compared to their 
White and Hispanic counterparts. Furthermore, the 
#gure also illustrates female sterilization rates being 
higher amongst Black women, re$ecting the dark 
history of Black women being coerced into being 
sterilized forcibly and unknowingly. !e structural 
and institutional barriers that remain in the United 
States today could provide reasoning behind these 
observed disparities since income inequality and 
medical malpractice are more frequent amongst 
historically underserved populations. In fact, women 
and racial minorities are 20-30% more likely than 
White men to receive a misdiagnosis, highlighting 
the de-prioritization of this population which 
cultures a harmful environment in medical practices. 
Although family planning is an e%ective practice 
of reproductive healthcare, history has repeatedly 
shown that these family planning decisions were 
made for marginalized populations by others, rather 
than the individuals a%ected. !e ambiguities behind 
reproductive coercion have historically allowed 
subtle yet detrimental ways for it to prevail in vital 
areas of life institutions, and this trend continues 
today. !ese practices endanger the very people 
that legal and societal systems are implemented to 
assist, Black women being one of many. It is more 
important than ever to recognize these historical 
failures in order to ensure advances in healthcare 
do not repeat unjust practices that so shockingly 
regulated a culture of reproductive coercion.

Conclusion
 !e immeasurable mental and physical damage 
caused by the prevalence of reproductive coercion 
can never be erased. Survivors have had to confront 
their traumatic experiences and attempt to cope with 
the health hardships of pregnancy and abuse while 
they themselves may be unaware of what pregnancy 
coercion is, or what is happening to them. However, 
there is hope. In 2022, Judge Mark Juhas wrote 
and de#ned the term, “reproductive coercion” into 
California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act. It 
was written to expand on the term, “coercive control,” 
in which reproductive coercion, speci#cally, is the 
attempt to “control over the reproductive autonomy 
of another through force, threat of force, or 
intimidation, and may include, but is not limited to, 
unreasonably pressuring the other party to become 
pregnant, deliberately interfering with contraception 
use or access to reproductive health information, or 
using coercive tactics to control, or attempt to control, 
pregnancy outcomes” (Family Law News, 2023). 
Eliminating the vagueness surrounding reproductive 
coercion will now allow for a more straightforward 
understanding of what abusive behaviors may fall 
under it, allowing survivors to process the abuse 
they faced as an unjusti#able crime. Due to the dark 
and emotional complexities of abuse, it is di&cult to 
truly see a world in which it is forever eliminated, 
even with the countless attempts movements 
and protestors have pushed for. Abuse has been 
prominent in history, and it has been repeatedly 
proven that keeping silent about the obvious has 
caused unrepairable damage not just to individuals, 
but society as a whole. Advocates of reproductive 
justice demand systemic change to address the 
racial disparities and ethical dilemmas correlating 
with reproductive coercion. It has repeatedly been 
proven to be a prominent humanitarian issue, one 
that was right in front of our faces, for decades. We 
have once again chosen not to listen and ignore the 
obvious due to the fantasy we have accepted—that 
enough e%orts made to prevent abuse have already 
been made. !e e%ort to legally de#ne reproductive 
coercion in American policy should directly label it 
as abuse and allow for legal protections to validate 
and enunciate the undeniable harm of reproductive 
coercion, creating more pathways for survivors to 
receive the help they need.

14



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  2025

References
American College of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists. (2022). Reproductive and sexual 
coercion. www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-
guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2013/02/
reproductive-and-sexual-coercion.

Auerbach, S. L., Coleman-Minahan, K., Alspaugh, 
A., Aztlan, E. A., Stern, L., & Simmonds, K. 
(2023). Critiquing the unintended pregnancy 
framework. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s 
Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13457

Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Liu, Y., Kresnow, M., 
Fasula, A. M., Gilbert, L., & Chen, J. (2018). 
Rape-related pregnancy and association with 
reproductive coercion in the U.S. American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(6), 770–776. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.07.028

Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Liu, Y., Miller, E., & 
Kresnow, M. (2019). Prevalence of intimate partner 
reproductive coercion in the United States: Racial 
and ethnic di%erences. Journal of Interpersonal 
Violence, 36(21-22), 088626051988820. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888205

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, 
May 16).' About intimate partner violence. 
Intimate Partner Violence Prevention. https://
www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/
index.html

Center for Reproductive Rights. (2022). Roe v. 
Wade. Center for Reproductive Rights. https://
reproductiverights.org/roe-v-wade/

Congressional Research Service. (2023). !e 
2022 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) 
reauthorization. https://crsreports.congress.gov/
product/pdf/R/R47570/2

D’Angelo, Denise V., et al. “Rape and Sexual Coercion 
Related Pregnancy in the United States.” 
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 66(3), 5 
Nov. 2023, pp. S0749-3797(23)004427, pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37935321/, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.amepre.2023.11.001.

Dickman, Samuel, et al. (2024). Rape-related 
pregnancies in the 14 US states with total abortion 
bans.JAMA Internal Medicine 184(3), https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0014.

Dietz, P. M. (1999). Unintended pregnancy 
among adult women exposed to abuse or 
household dysfunction during their childhood. 
JAMA, 282(14), 1359. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jama.282.14.1359

E. F. (2023, April 12). Law O"ces of John D. Rogers. 
https://johndrogerslaw.com/is-stealthing-a-
crime-under-california-law/

Eugenics. (2023). Oxford Dictionary. https://doi.
org/10.1093//OED//9281777902

Gaxiola. (2023, October 25).' !e Genesis of 
American Law: !e In#uence of English Law A$er 
the American Revolution.  Gaxiola & Litwak 
Law Group. https://www.criminallawaz.com/
the-genesis-of-american-law-the-in$uence-of-
english-law-a"er-the-american-revolution/

Gold, R. B. (2014, September 8). Guarding against 
coercion while ensuring access: A delicate balance. 
Guttmacher Institute. https://www.guttmacher.
org/gpr/2014/09/guarding-against-coercion-
while-ensuring-access-delicate-balance#

Ja%e, A. E., Steel, A. L., DiLillo, D., Messman-
Moore, T. L., & Gratz, K. L. (2017). Characterizing 
sexual violence in intimate relationships: An 
examination of blame attributions and rape 
acknowledgment.' Journal of Interpersonal 
Violence, 36(1-2), 088626051772697. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260517726972

Johns Hopkins University. (27 Sept. 2024). Looking 
back at the Violence Against Women Act 
a"er 30 years of protection. !e Hub, hub.jhu.
edu/2024/09/27/violence-against-women-act-
30th-anniversary/.

Juhas, M. (2023). Reproductive coercion in 
California Domestic Violence Law. California 
Lawyers Association. https://calawyers.org/

15



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  2025

publications/family-law/family-law-news-
volume-45-issue-1-fall-2023-reproductive-
coercion-in-california-domestic-violence-law/

Kazmerski, T., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K., Borrero, 
S., Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., Tancredi, D., & 
Miller, E. (2014). Use of reproductive and sexual 
health services among female Family Planning 
Clinic clients exposed to partner violence and 
reproductive coercion. Maternal and Child 
Health Journal, 19(7), 1490–1496. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10995-014-1653-2

Ko, L. (2016, January 29). Unwanted sterilization 
and eugenics programs in the United States. 
Independent Lens; PBS. https://www.pbs.org/
independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-
and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/

Larkin, Z. (2020, July 1). Abortion media coverage 
is “deeply, and problematically, politicized” 
says study. Ms. Magazine. Msmagazine.com. 
https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/01/abortion-
media-coverage-is-deeply-and-problematically-
politicized-says-study/

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 25 CFR § 11.406 - 
Criminal coercion. LII / Legal Information 
Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
text/25/11.406

Leins, C. (2015). Sobering stats for domestic 
violence awareness month. US News & World 
Report, https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/
data-mine/2015/10/09/sobering-stats-for-
domestic-violence-awareness-month

Mann, E. S., & Grzanka, P. R. (2018). Agency-
without-choice: !e visual rhetorics of long-
acting reversible contraception promotion. 
Symbolic Interaction, 41(3), 334–356. https://doi.
org/10.1002/symb.349

Miller, E., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Decker, 
M. R., Anderson, H., & Silverman, J. G. (2014). 
Recent reproductive coercion and unintended 
pregnancy among female family planning 
clients. Contraception, 89(2), 122–128. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.011

Moulton, J. E., Corona, M. I. V., Vaughan, C., & 
Bohren, M. A. (2021). Women’s perceptions 
and experiences of reproductive coercion and 
abuse: A qualitative evidence synthesis. PLOS 
ONE, 16(12), e0261551. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0261551

MSNBC. (2024, October 12). In push for fetal 
personhood, pregnant women are being jailed 
for miscarrying. YouTube. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=U2RaPs-0zPo

National Archives. (2021, September 7). 14th 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights 
(1868). National Archives. https://www.archives.
gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment

National Black Women's Reproductive Agenda. 
(n.d.). Contraceptive equity – In our own voice. 
https://blackrj.org/our-causes/contraceptive-
equity/

National Human Genome Research Institute. (2022, 
May 18). Eugenics and scienti&c racism. National 
Human Genome Research Institute. https://
www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/
Eugenics-and-Scienti#c-Racism

NSPCC Learning. (2024, January 26). Why language 
matters: Why to avoid the term “victim” to refer 
to children who have experienced abuse. NSPCC 
Learning. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/news/
why-language-matters/avoid-victim-talking-
about-children-experienced-abuse

Partida, M. G. (n.d.). Research Guides: A Latinx 
Resource Guide: Civil Rights Cases and Events in 
the United States: 1981: Madrigal v. Quilligan. 
Guides.loc.gov. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-
civil-rights/madrigal-v-quilligan

RAINN. (2020). !e Criminal Justice 
System: Statistics. Rainn.org. https://rainn.org/
statistics/criminal-justice-system

Ross, L. J. (2017). Reproductive justice as 
intersectional feminist activism – Feminist 
pedagogy for teaching online. Tulane.edu. https://

16



Reproductive Coercion: A Systematic Review

Aisthesis      Volume 16,  2025

feminists-teach-online.tulane.edu/resources/
reproductive-justice-as-intersectional-feminist-
activism/

Supreme Court of Canada. (n.d.). R. v. Kirkpatrick 
- SCC Cases. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/
scc-csc/en/item/19458/index.do

Szabo, L. (2024, January 19). Women and minorities 
are more likely to be misdiagnosed, and more in this 
week’s roundup. Connecticut Health Foundation. 
https://www.cthealth.org/latest-news/health-
news-roundup/women-and-minorities-are-
more-likely-to-be-misdiagnosed-and-more-in-
this-weeks-roundup/

Taub, Amanda. (2022, May 19). !e 17th-
century judge at the heart of today’s 
women’s rights rulings. New York Times, https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/world/asia/
abortion-lord-matthew-hale.html

!e United States Department of Justice. (2015, 
August 6). Deprivation of rights under color of 
law. Justice.gov. https://www.justice.gov/crt/
deprivation-rights-under-color-law

!e White House. (12 Sept. 2024). Fact sheet: Biden-
Harris Administration commemorates the 30th 
anniversary of the Violence against Women Act and 
strengthens commitment to ending gender-based 
violence. www.whitehouse.gov/brie#ng-room/
statements-releases/2024/09/12/fact-sheet-
biden-harris-administration-commemorates-
the-30th-anniversary-of-the-violence-against-
women-act-and-strengthens-commitment-to-
ending-gender-based-violence/.

United States Attorney's O&ce. (2023, April 3). 
Central District of California | Domestic Violence 
Laws. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/do-
mestic-violence-laws

United States House of Representatives. (n.d.). 22 
USC 7102: De#nitions. uscode.house.gov. https://
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20
section:7102%20edition:prelim)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. (19 Jan. 2023). Violence against 
Women Act (VAWA). U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), www.
hud.gov/VAWA#close.

van Ee, E., & Blokland, J. (2019). Bad blood or my 
blood: A Qualitative study into the dimensions 
of interventions for mothers with children 
born of sexual violence. International Journal 
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 
16(23), 4810. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph16234810

Montague, E. (2022, July 27). Roe v. Wade 
was never enough. !e Fem Word. https://
www.thefemword.world/the-word/roe-v-wade-
was-never-enough

Women's Congressional Policy Institute. (n.d.). 
VAWA Approved by Senate Committee. Women’s 
Congressional Policy Institute. https://www.
wcpinst.org/source/vawa-approved-by-senate-
committee/

17


