Investigating Reproductive Coercion and Violence Towards Women with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4 Executive summary Background: the issue For centuries, women with disabilities (WWD) have been subject to multiple and intersecting forms of violence (Abbas, 2022). Much of the literature has focused on intimate partner violence towards WWD (i.e. Campbell et al., 2022; Meyer et al., 2022). Reproductive violence towards WWD has received less attention, despite the long history of reproductive injustice within Canadian and international contexts. This particular form of violence towards WWD is a violation of human rights and has multiple and pervasive impacts on social, emotional, and physical health (Björnsdóttir et al., 2017; Grace & Anderson, 2018; McConnell & Phelan, 2022; Powell, 2021). The Senate of Canada Committee on Human Rights (2022), recently published a report indicating the prevalence of reproductive coercion on intersecting and marginalized communities, calling to action the government and health and social service sectors. Despite the recognition of the issues and rights of WWD within their reproductive journey, there is scant literature in the field. Objectives The objective of this project was to conduct a scoping review investigating and synthesizing the research literature related to reproductive violence against WWD within Canadian and international contexts. Results Following a rigorous research strategy, 48 publications were included in this scoping review. Although heterogeneous, this review provides an overview of the meaning and types of reproductive violence towards WWD. The results of this scoping review are centered on legal analysis and most of the publications are related to women with intellectual disabilities. Within the legal disciplines, questions related to the ‘best interests’ of WWD and informed consent were widely examined in the selected international publications. Key messages • Stereotypes within society, such as WWD being identified as asexual, dependent, and unfit for motherhood prevail. Within the legal studies, it was evidenced that these ideologies underpinned many decisions that were taken in court applications for sterilization. • WWD lack access to information and services related to sexual and reproductive health and rights. 5 • WWD are often coerced into long-term and/or irreversible contraception methods. • Managing menstrual issues is one of the main arguments in the application of sterilization towards WWD. The other important issues are related to protecting against sexual abuse and preventing unexpected pregnancies. • There is a gap in research-knowledge related to sterilization that occurs outside institutions. • There is a need for more empirical studies related to reproductive violence including the exploration of the experiences of WWD. Methods (search methods, selection criteria, data collection and analysis) In this project, we conducted a scoping review, following the six steps recommended by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) in their framework for conducting scoping reviews (updated by Levac et al., 2010). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were related to gender (had to be oriented towards women), disabilities (had to be disability focused) and reproductive violence (had to refer specifically to reproductive violence). We excluded all publications related to HIV/AIDS and mental health issues. Another important exclusion criterion was related to the accessibility of the publication.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".