Reproductive Rights without Resources or Recourse

Minority stress theory applied to conception, pregnancy, and pregnancy loss: A qualitative study examining LGBTQ+ people’s experiences

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (trans), queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) people desire to conceive children. Yet, LGBTQ+ peoples’ experiences are scant in reproductive health literature, particularly around pregnancy loss—a stigmatized and distressing pregnancy outcome. Informed by minority stress theory, this qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of multi-level stigma and resilience among LGBTQ+ people in the context of conception, pregnancy, and loss. Seventeen semi-structured individual interviews (25–70 minutes) were conducted (2019) with a purposive sample of LGBTQ+ people in the United States (U.S.) who had experienced pregnancy loss (n = 14) or in an intimate partnership in which a pregnancy was lost (n = 3) in the last two years. Transcribed interviews were analyzed thematically. Participants described the profound sadness of pregnancy loss due to unique challenges of LGBTQ+ conception. Multiple types of stigma manifested at intrapersonal (e.g., anticipated sexual stigma upon disclosure), interpersonal (e.g., unsolicited advice about conception decisions), and structural levels (e.g., differential requirements to access conception compared to heterosexual/cisgender couples). Resilience was also seen individually (e.g., purposeful disclosure of conception, pregnancy, and loss), relationally (e.g., connecting with other LGBTQ+ community members), and collectively (e.g., creating/engaging in LGBTQ+-specific conception, pregnancy, and loss online spaces). LGBTQ+ people experience minority stressors of multi-level stigmatization throughout the pregnancy process, which limits their access to social support after experiencing pregnancy loss. However, individual, relational, and collective resilience strategies abound in response. Thus, minority stress theory can also be applied to recognize strengths-based and affirming approaches to reproductive healthcare for LGBTQ+ people.

Normal parents: Trans pregnancy and the production of reproducers

BACKGROUND

Some trans people want to create families in a variety of ways that include pregnancy, but often face obstacles in doing so.

AIMS

This paper explores how trans pregnancy is treated as exceptional and out of the ordinary by reproductive institutions.

METHODS

Analysis of case studies demonstrates the ubiquity of institutional obstacles to trans pregnancy and how reproductive institutions unnecessarily render trans pregnancy exceptional.

RESULTS

Reproductive institutions shape the kinds of people for whom achieving pregnancy is made easier, and often fail to imagine the possibility of trans parents. This failure of imagination is not rooted in biological fact, but rather in social logics that ought to be the site for transformations that expand access and shift provider attitudes.

DISCUSSION

Trans parents are unexceptional in the sense that, even though they may experience relatively more concentrated forms of adversity, they share many reproductive capabilities and obstacles with cis parents. In light of that concentrated adversity and the epistemic insights it might generate, how might prospective trans parents engage with new reproductive technologies? How might these engagements render them moral pioneers called to make decisions about the sorts of people created using reproductive biotechnologies?

Understanding social oocyte freezing in Italy: a scoping survey on university female students' awareness and attitudes

In Western countries, a social trend toward delaying childbearing has been observed in women of reproductive age for the last two decades. This delay is due to different factors related to lifestyle, such as the development of a professional career or the absence of the right partner. As a consequence, women who defer childbearing may find themselves affected by age-related infertility when they decide to conceive. Fertility preservation techniques are, therefore, proposed as a solution for these women. Among all possible solutions, social freezing is an alternative strongly discussed from a scientific, social and ethical point of view.A survey among 930 female students at the University of Padova (Italy) investigated their knowledge and attitudes on social egg freezing and their potential intentions regarding this procedure. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the level of awareness of age-related infertility in Italian young women and their attitudes regarding acceptable indications for elective oocyte freezing, their potential personal use, the circumstances in which they would then decide to use cryopreserved eggs, and their attitudes towards cost coverage and oocyte donation.Data collected in this study revealed some important points about young women and their knowledge about social oocyte freezing in Italy as compared to other European countries and the United States.Overall, 34.3% of the students reported having heard about the possibility of oocyte cryopreservation for non-medical reasons and being aware of the meaning of this procedure; only 19.5% were in favour of social egg freezing and 48.4% thought that the cost for this procedure should be borne entirely by the woman herself. Regarding egg donation, the majority of students (64.9%) would not accept donating their eggs to a known woman or couple and 42.5% would instead accept donating to a biobank.Our study shows that young Italian women are significantly less aware of age-related decline in fertility and the possibility of using social egg freezing compared to their similarly situated counterparts in other Western countries.

The Future of Reproductive Autonomy

In a project The Hastings Center is now running on the future of prenatal testing, we are encountering clear examples, both in established law and in the practices of individual providers, of failures to respect women's reproductive autonomy: when testing is not offered to certain demographics of women, for instance, or when the choices of women to terminate or continue pregnancies are prohibited or otherwise not supported. But this project also raises puzzles for reproductive autonomy. We have learned that some clinicians and patients do not discuss the fact that prenatal testing can lead to a decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy-they just don't talk about it. And while the decision whether to agree to prenatal screening and diagnostic testing is to be made with women's free and informed consent, many screening tests have been routinized in such a way that some women do not even recall agreeing to testing, while others feel that agreeing to testing is what their clinicians expect of them or that the testing is necessary to protect themselves and their families from the significant financial hardship of raising a child with a disability. In the face of these pressures, can one really say that women are freely choosing to undergo testing or are freely choosing to continue or terminate a pregnancy following receipt of test results? The reality of these pressures is requiring us to consider expanding the scope of our investigation beyond the clinical encounter to the broader context-to think harder about what reproductive autonomy means and how best to enhance it.