Jump to content

Talk:Reproductive justice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meganchong (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 4 March 2021 (Update Reproductive Justice assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WikiEd banner shell This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qjbradley (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 23 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmorr26, KiyaUAB21 (article contribs).


Balance

This article needs to be more balanced (for example, men have access to far fewer forms of birth control and fewer reproductive choices) or, failing that, needs to be moved to Women's reproductive justice or Reproductive justice for women. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an unbalance in the reproductive justice movement, wikipedia is not the place to try to correct that unbalance. NPOV does not say, "give all view points equal weight". NPOV says to give all views due weight. Therefore, if the largest organizations that deal with reproductive justice doesn't cover men's issues, then it isn't unbalanced to focus less on men's issues. Trumping up men's issues to make them seem equal to a much larger, notable movement would be unbalanced. That said, if we had notable and reliable sources to cite, it would seem fitting to cover those topics, but we do need to take into consideration weight issues. It all depends on our sources. For example, if our sources don't mention violence against men, then it is inappropriate to add that as an reproductive justice issue. -Andrew c [talk] 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks to your edits, men's issues have been given zero weight in the article. I still think the article should be moved to more accurately reflect the content. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this particular movement is just advancing the rights of women and ignores needs for improvements in sexual education and contraceptive access for men (e.g. vasectomy is much safer and lower cost permanent contraceptive option, but is underused in the US, so promoting that could advance the cause of reproductive rights, contraceptive choices, women's health, etc.). I am not saying that this particular concept/group/whatever does promote that, but it is a reasonable approach, and it is reasonable to assume that the reader interested in this article might also be interested in such approaches too. The article should at least link to movements that seek to extend contraceptive rights to men, or for equality of contraceptive rights. Zodon (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unbalanced in favor of the point of view that reproductive rights are valid or just; that is, it gives zero weight at all to the opposing viewpoint. For example, the section on abortion clearly favors the pro-choice side of the abortion debate. (Contrast that with the article on contraceptive mandates, which takes an entirely different point of view. They cannot both be neutral at the same time.) Bwrs (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article is incredibly unbalanced. While this article does have it's place, it is useless as written. Whenever the phrase "reproductive justice" is brought up, I always think of the quote, "One man's justice is another's injustice; one man's beauty another's ugliness; one man's wisdom another's folly.". Potatman (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is complete bullshit. Using terms like anti-choice instead of the neutral pro-life absolutely gives you away, whomever it is that wrote this article. It deserves deletion for being so laughably, irresponsibly biased in the direction of the pro-choice viewpoint. Shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.188.249 (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree. The article is woefully unbalanced. The term "reproductive justice" itself is such a loaded phrase that it leaves me skeptical that this article is salvageable. Perhaps if the article confined itself to describing the history and philosophy of the reproductive justice movement, including criticisms of the movement, it could become a balanced and useful article, but as it stands, it reads like a position paper. --Yaush (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

Is this just a USA thing? (In which case it should say so). It is quite similar to various other women's rights, reproductive rights, etc. movements. If this particular one is USA only, then needs to link to other similar movements in global context. If it is broader, then needs to expand to cover not just US issues/examples. Zodon (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing balance and global perspectives

Template:WAP assignment

As a student in Rice University’s Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class and a new member of the Wiki community, I want to introduce myself and discuss improvements I would like to make to this article. Although the existing information differentiates well between reproductive health, reproductive rights, and reproductive justice, I want to focus on the latter and address the issues of perspective and international focus that have been highlighted as necessary improvements. I would first expand the short article introduction and then add information from international sources such as the United Nations to contribute to the balance and depth of each subsection. I want to examine the literature regarding reproductive justice to determine whether additional perspectives are actually neglected in this article, and then make the necessary amendments. I also want to include a subsection examining the reproductive justice movement in Latin America as a case study. I would appreciate any feedback you think might guide my aims and edits. As a new contributor, I could use all the advice you want to share with me. Thank you for your help! Nlaza (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt that other perspectives are being woefully neglected. I hope you can address that honestly and effectively. --Yaush (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. One fundamental problem is that the article seems conflicted as to whether it is about "reproductive justice" as a theoretical framework or if it is actually assessing levels of "reproductive justice" in the US and around the world. Some sentences here appear to not be about the reproductive justice movement, but just about abortion in the US. Wikipedia already has articles on Support for the legalization of abortion and Abortion in the United States (as well as many other countries); while this article may need to provide a bit of historical context, the focus should probably stay on the term "reproductive justice" specifically, and how different groups have deployed or contested the term. Thanks for your attention to this important topic. Khazar2 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that there are some clear issues with this article. First off, there are some areas where citations are lacking, such as under the section titled "United Nations involvement." Secondly, it does seem at times that the article discusses abortion in the United States as it's own topic rather than reproductive justice. This discussion of reproductive justice would benefit from a more global, cross-cultural approach; a discussion of how reproductive justice functions in other parts of the world. This is mostly because the effectiveness of activism and the meanings associated with reproduction are culturally specific. Lastly, some of the language used in the article suggests a pro-choice bias. As others have pointed out. The use of the term "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life" definitely influences the way that a reader interprets this topic.Mpraml (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion for expanding the article

Hi,

This article would benefit from expansion on the subject of racially focused compulsory / forced / targeted sterilization programs. Worldwide, many countries have long histories of racialized compulsory sterilization programs that have had severe impacts on the lives of racialized women and people of all gender identities. The Wikipedia article on compulsory sterilization covers a lot of this subject matter (which I recently linked to), however a summary of those issues in this article would be insightful. The existing section of the article that covers abuse of female prisoners is a good start. This issue is relevant to the broader picture of reproductive justice, and there is a vast amount of research material easily available regarding the subject.Sturgeontransformer (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing LGBTQ+ reproductive rights

I propose the addition of an LGBTQ section to this article in order to identify the issues LGBTQ persons face in seeking reproductive care. Specifically, LGBTQ persons are often excluded from family planning bills which allow free access to STI screening, contraceptives and sex education. Varsha will write about what family planning issues LGBTQ people face. Yelena will address the limitations of access to reproductive health services by the LGBTQ community. Monica will add a section about sexually transmitted diseases, apart from US prisons, to include more information about the impacts on family planning in both general and LGBTQ population. Varinder will add a section about the role of men in reproductive justice since the article focuses mainly on women. Resources for the proposed edits will come from secondary sources found on PubMed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meng1359 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L-Ion-S (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on addressing this section. I hope to expand on specific bills which are called "family planning" bills but offer free STI screenings to only heterosexual couples. Specifically, I will be contributing information about the FamilyPACT program in California, which was established in 1996. The programs aims to help men and women, who have income 200% of the federal poverty limit, plan for children and maintain reproductive health.[1]
It currently excludes men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW) through the provision that users must have a medical need for family planning services, not accounting for LGBT men and women who plan to have biological children.[2]
The CDC identifies gay and bisexual men at an increased risk to STDs including HIV [3]. STDs can impair reproductive health. [4] Varshieee (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make additional changes to this section. I believe the amount of information about STI transmission in this population is excessive. I would like to cut out some of the details. Additionally, I would like to merge this section with the other section pertaining to LGBTQ+ access to reproductive care. Varshieee (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://files.medi-cal.ca.gov/pubsdoco/publications/masters-mtp/fpact/fam_f00.doc
  2. ^ http://www.familypact.org/Get%20Covered/client-eligibility-enrollment/eligibility-criteria
  3. ^ (https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm)
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility#Sexually_transmitted_infections

CP133 Peer Reviews

The following constructive comments are reviews for the recent edits made by our fellow classmates and designed to help our classmates with the editing process.

"Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely accessible? If not, specify…" The edits pertaining to the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services utilize a mixture of verifiable secondary and primary sources that tie well to the goals the CP133 students made prior to the edits. Secondary sources included data from the CDC, Family Pact, and literature review articles. For example, the statements about providers’ hetereonormative attitudes towards patients was cited with a systematic review published in the BMC International Health and Human Rights journal. Another good example of citing a journal article reviewing existing publications is seen within the discussion about MSM having elevated STI risk compared to MSW populations. On the other hand, citing primary literature should be avoided. Some original research articles were cited, such as the statement about the limited health research for LGBTQ community. Another example of citing primary sources is the comment made about LGBT youth being at a higher risk to contract STIs and HIV. Helenwh (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…" After going through the edits made to the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services, there appears to be no evidence of plagiarism or copy right violation. I ran the article through two Wiki-approved copyright checkers (Earwig's Copyvio Detector and Wikipedia Duplication Detector) and it showed no signs of plagiarism. I made sure to remove numbers (since those can flag as exact matches) and compared full text pdf versions of the cited articles from the section with the student revisions. There were some exact matches in phrases that could not be changed, such as "men who have sex with men (MSM) or women who have sex with women (WSW)." Although there were some flags of phrase matches (greater than 5 words match) when the wiki article as a whole was run through the comparison programs, the matches were not in the LGBTQ+ access to reproductive health services.Miss k8 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…" Yes, the draft submission reflects a neutral point of view for the most part. I only have a couple of suggestions. 1.To L-Ion-S: “In addition to poor educational standards…” sounds somewhat subjective. I suggest changing the word “poor” to “lower” or "low" instead, and provide supporting evidence such as X number of hours in training as compared to the standard Y number of hours in training. 2.To Meng1359: “There is strong evidence that…” The word “strong” sounds somewhat subjective. I suggest changing this part to “Several studies (or X numeber of studies) have shown that…” 3. To Meng1359: minor edit needed "and about half as likely to a condom during their last instance of sexual intercourse" is missing the word "have" a condom. Overall I thought the edit is well written, and almost every statement is provided with data/statistics to support them. The added section “LBGTQ+ access to reproductive health services” definitely has made this wikipedia page more comprehensive. Finally I suggest the group to edit section "HIV positive women" first 2 paragraphs because it lacks citations and seems biased.Lisha.Deng (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisha.Deng (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for medicine-related articles? If not, specify…"
The majority of the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. I do have a few minor suggestions regarding the formatting of citations:

  1. To L-Ion-S: In citation 57, capitalize only the first letter of each word in the journal title. → Done. L-Ion-S (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. To Varshieee: In citation 60, consider citing the direct source for the statistic rather than the Wikipedia "Infertility" page.

Cp133 student (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I notice there are very few citations for the information in the HIV in women section. I am planning on deleting the section unless strong evidence to support the claims made are added to the article. Varshieee (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made about Loretta Ross

Hi there!

We just made some changes to the external link corrected to Loretta Ross' biography in Smith College website, we moved it to the External Link section. We removed the external link from Ross' name and will add the Wikipedia link for her page when we're done drafting it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syasyanasaruddin (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hi there. I am going to be adding a section under the "International" heading regarding reproductive justice in Canada, specifically coerced sterilizations of Indigenous women in Canada. This contribution is being done for a university class project. Bfmwiki (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reproductive_justice&oldid=1010292518"