Paper Title
Norplant and Contemporary Eugenics
Panel
Life at the Intersection(s): Eugenics and Reproductive Justice
Location
Room 214, West Center
Start Date
1-4-2016 5:00 PM
End Date
1-4-2016 6:15 PM
Abstract
In 1990, the FDA approved Norplant, a birth control that was surgically inserted into a woman's arm and intended to prevent pregnancies for up to five years. Many physicians and women’s activists saw it as an advancement in their reproductive freedom, but a series of unanticipated events made Norplant a part of the history of eugenics. My paper will argue that despite Norplant’s empowering qualities, the government instead used the device to forcibly sterilize women. Shortly after the FDA’s approval, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial that recommended providing women on welfare with monetary incentives to be put on Norplant. Ultimately, advocating for enforced sterilization of poor women of color. The editorial received nationwide media attention because of its racist and eugenic connotations. Different branches of the government throughout the U.S. used Norplant as a sterilizing tool. State lawmakers throughout the nation advocated for government programs making Norplant readily available to women on welfare, while also pressuring them to use the device. Other local communities used Norplant to combat rising rates of teenage pregnancies, especially amongst poor adolescents of color. Removal of the device also created problems. If a woman accepted a governmentsponsored monetary incentive to insert Norplant, she was commonly required to obtain a court ordered approval to have it removed. Also, the removal of Norplant was costly, which made it a difficult decision for poor women. Clearly, Norplant was used to prevent minority and poor women from having additional children. Therefore, an examination of Norplant uncovers contemporary eugenics practices in the United States.
Norplant and Contemporary Eugenics
Room 214, West Center
In 1990, the FDA approved Norplant, a birth control that was surgically inserted into a woman's arm and intended to prevent pregnancies for up to five years. Many physicians and women’s activists saw it as an advancement in their reproductive freedom, but a series of unanticipated events made Norplant a part of the history of eugenics. My paper will argue that despite Norplant’s empowering qualities, the government instead used the device to forcibly sterilize women. Shortly after the FDA’s approval, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial that recommended providing women on welfare with monetary incentives to be put on Norplant. Ultimately, advocating for enforced sterilization of poor women of color. The editorial received nationwide media attention because of its racist and eugenic connotations. Different branches of the government throughout the U.S. used Norplant as a sterilizing tool. State lawmakers throughout the nation advocated for government programs making Norplant readily available to women on welfare, while also pressuring them to use the device. Other local communities used Norplant to combat rising rates of teenage pregnancies, especially amongst poor adolescents of color. Removal of the device also created problems. If a woman accepted a governmentsponsored monetary incentive to insert Norplant, she was commonly required to obtain a court ordered approval to have it removed. Also, the removal of Norplant was costly, which made it a difficult decision for poor women. Clearly, Norplant was used to prevent minority and poor women from having additional children. Therefore, an examination of Norplant uncovers contemporary eugenics practices in the United States.
