Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-l69ms Total loading time: 0.487 Render date: 2022-08-14T21:02:46.682Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Imposing Values and Enforcing Gender through Knowledge: Epistemic Oppression with the Morning-after Pill's Drug Label

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2022

Christopher ChoGlueck*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Liberal Arts, and Social Sciences (CLASS), New Mexico Tech (New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology), 215 Finch Hall, 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, New Mexico 87801
*
Corresponding author. Email: Christopher.ChoGlueck@nmt.edu

Abstract

Among feminist philosophers, there are two lines of argument that sexist values are illegitimate in science, focusing on epistemic or ethical problems. This article supports a third framework, elucidating how value-laden science can enable epistemic oppression. My analysis demonstrates how purported knowledge laden with sexist values can compromise epistemic autonomy and contribute to paternalism and misogyny. I exemplify these epistemic wrongs with a case study of the morning-after pill (emergency contraception) during its 2006 switch to over-the-counter availability and its new drug label from the US Food and Drug Administration that it “may prevent implantation.” Antiabortion science advisers created this label to protect zygotes based on debated value judgments that were later concealed. This zygote-centric knowledge enabled them to shape potential users by instructing “good mothers” that they ought to protect zygotes and punishing “bad mothers” by refusing their requests for the drug. Therefore, I argue that the sexist values and gender norms of antiabortionists that prioritize zygotic health are illegitimate in this context because they cause epistemic injustices and perpetuate epistemic oppression. Furthermore, I advocate against blanket protections for the “right to conscience” and “religious freedom” of healthcare providers because they reinforce the epistemic oppression of women, especially those on the margins.

Content Warning: This article discusses sexual assault and refusals to provide contraception to patients, including survivors.

Type
Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Spring 2022 , pp. 315 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brief for Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. et al. as respondents. 2013. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (no. 13–354). http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/No-13-354-Brief-for-Respondents.pdf.Google Scholar
Brief for Physicians for Reproductive Health et al. as amici curiae supporting petitioners. 2013. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (no. 13–354). http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-al....pdf.Google Scholar
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573, U.S. 682 (2014). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 1997. Emergency oral contraception. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 56 (3): 290–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2007. The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine. ACOG Committee Opinion, no. 385. Obstetrics & Gynecology 110: 1203–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia 19 (1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2012. Epistemic justice as a virtue of social institutions. Social Epistemology 26 (2): 163–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, Elizabeth M. 2003. Conceiving risk, bearing responsibility: Fetal alcohol syndrome and the diagnosis of moral disorder. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio. 2007. Is Plan B an abortifacient? National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7 (4): 703–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Moya. 2016. Misogynoir in medical media: On Caster Semenya and R. Kelly. Catalyst 2 (2): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartky, Sandra Lee. 1988. Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power. In Feminism and Foucault: Reflections of resistance, ed. Diamond, Irene and Quinby, Lee. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L., and Childress, James F.. 2013. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biddle, Justin B., and Kukla, Rebecca. 2017. The geography of epistemic risk. In Exploring inductive risk, ed. Elliott, Kevin C. and Richards, Ted. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biology and Gender Study Group (BGSG: Athena Beldecos, Sarah Bailey, Scott Gilbert, Karen Hicks, Lori Kenschaft, Nancy Niemczyk, Rebecca Rosenberg, Stephanie Schaertel, and Andrew Wedel). 1988. The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology. Hypatia 3 (1): 6176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2013. The source and status of values for socially responsible science. Philosophical Studies 163 (1): 6776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucar, Elizabeth. 1999. Caution: Catholic health restrictions may be hazardous to your health. Washington, D.C.: Catholics for a Free Choice. https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1998cautioncatholichealthrestrictions.pdf.Google Scholar
Cantor, Julie, and Baum, Ken. 2004. The limits of conscientious objection: May pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception? New England Journal of Medicine 351 (19): 2008–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Card, Robert F. 2007. Conscientious objection and emergency contraception. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (6): 814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carel, Havi, and Kidd, Ian James. 2014. Epistemic injustice in healthcare: A philosophical analysis. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (4): 529–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC). 2005. The facts about Catholic health care in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Catholics for a Free Choice. http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2005factsaboutcatholichealthcare_000.pdf.Google Scholar
Chiarello, Elizabeth. 2013. How organizational context affects bioethical decision-making: Pharmacists’ management of gatekeeping processes in retail and hospital settings. Social Science & Medicine 98 (December): 319–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ChoGlueck, Christopher. 2018. The error is in the gap: Synthesizing accounts for societal values in science. Philosophy of Science 85 (4): 704–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ChoGlueck, Christopher. 2019. Broadening the scope of our understanding of mechanisms: Lessons from the history of the morning-after pill. Synthese 198: 2223–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02201-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ChoGlueck, Christopher. 2021. Drug facts, values, and the morning-after pill. Public Affairs Quarterly 35 (1): 5182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleland, Kelly, Raymond, Elizabeth G., Westley, Elizabeth, and Trussell, James. 2014. Emergency contraception review: Evidence-based recommendations for clinicians. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 57 (4): 741–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clough, Sharyn. 2013. Feminist theories of evidence and biomedical research communities: A reply to Goldenberg. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (12): 7276.Google Scholar
Creanga, Andreea A., Bateman, Brian T., Kuklina, Elena V., and Callaghan, William M.. 2014. Racial and ethnic disparities in severe maternal morbidity: A multistate analysis, 2008–2010. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 210 (5): 435.e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cupples, Laura M. 2020. Disability, epistemic harms, and the quality-adjusted life year. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 13 (1): 4562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Kimberly, Jones, Jo, and Abma, Joyce C.. 2013. Use of emergency contraception among women aged 15–44, United States, 2006–2010. NCHS data brief, no. 112. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Davidoff, Frank, and Trussell, James. 2006. Plan B and the politics of doubt. Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (14): 1775–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Laura A., Pettis, Clare T., Joiner, Amber J., Cook, Daniel M., and Klugman, Craig M.. 2010. Religion and conscientious objection: A survey of pharmacists’ willingness to dispense medications. Social Science & Medicine 71 (1): 161–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Del Bo, Corrado. 2012. Conscientious objection and the morning-after pill. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2): 133–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, Kristie. 2012. A cautionary tale: On limiting epistemic oppression. Frontiers 33 (1): 2447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotson, Kristie. 2014. Conceptualizing epistemic oppression. Social Epistemology 28 (2): 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2015. Values in science. In Oxford handbook in the philosophy of science, ed. Humphreys, Paul. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellertson, C., Trussell, J., Stewart, F. H., and Winikoff, B.. 1998. Should emergency contraceptive pills be available without prescription? Journal of the American Medical Women's Association 53 (5 Suppl 2): 226–32.Google ScholarPubMed
Elliott, Kevin. 2017. A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federation, International, of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and International Consortium for Emergency Contraception (ICEC). 2008. Mechanism of action: How do levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptive pills (LNG ECPs) prevent pregnancy? https://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/International%20consortium%20for%20emergency%20contraception%20statement.pdf.Google Scholar
Fehr, Carla, and Plaisance, Kathryn S.. 2010. Socially relevant philosophy of science: An introduction. Synthese 177 (3): 301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenton, Elizabeth. 2013. Conscience and health. Ethical Perspectives 20 (1): 132–43.Google Scholar
Fenton, Elizabeth, and Lomasky, Loren. 2005. Dispensing with liberty: Conscientious refusal and the “morning-after pill.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (6): 579–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández Pinto, Manuela. 2017. To know or better not to: Agnotology and the social construction of ignorance in commercially driven research. Science & Technology Studies 30 (2): 5372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiala, Christian, and Arthur, Joyce H.. 2014. “Dishonourable disobedience”: Why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection. Woman - Psychosomatic Gynaecology and Obstetrics 1 (December): 1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florczak, Alexis M. 2018. Make America discriminate again: Why Hobby Lobby's expansion of RFRA is bad medicine for transgender health care. Health Matrix 28 (1): 431–47.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2003. Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee (NDAC) in joint session with the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs (ACRHD). Meeting transcript. Tuesday, December 16. Washington D.C.: US Government Publishing Office.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2006. Label, insert, and CARE program proposal for Plan B. Drugs@FDA database. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2006/021045s011lbl.pdf.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2013. Birth control: Medicines to help you. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2013/13-354/13-354-2.pdf.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977, ed. Gordon, Colin. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Freeman, Lauren. 2015. Confronting diminished epistemic privilege and epistemic injustice in pregnancy by challenging a “panoptics of the womb.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (1): 4468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemzell-Danielsson, Kristin, Berger, Cecilia, and Lalitkumar, P. G. L.. 2013. Emergency contraception: Mechanisms of action. Contraception 87 (3): 300308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glasier, Anna. 1997. Emergency postcoital contraception. New England Journal of Medicine 337 (15): 1058–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldenberg, Maya J. 2015. How can feminist theories of evidence assist clinical reasoning and decision-making? Social Epistemology 29 (1): 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Food and Drug Administration: Decision process to deny initial application for over-the-counter marketing of the emergency contraceptive drug Plan B was unusual. Report to congressional requesters no. GAO-06-109. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-109.Google Scholar
Griffin, Leslie C. 2015. The Catholic bishops vs. the contraceptive mandate. Religions 6 (4): 1411–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttmacher Institute. 2020. Emergency contraception. State laws and policies. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/emergency-contraception.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Health and Human Services Department (HHS). 2018a. Statement of organization, functions, and delegations of authority. Office for Civil Rights. Federal Register 83: 2802–03. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2018-00820.Google Scholar
Health and Human Services Department (HHS). 2018b. HHS announces new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. Office for Civil Rights. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/01/18/hhs-ocr-announces-new-conscience-and-religious-freedom-division.html.Google Scholar
Health and Human Services Department (HHS). 2019. Protecting statutory conscience rights in health care; Delegations of authority. Office for Civil Rights. Federal Register 84: 23170–272. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-09667.Google Scholar
Hicks, Daniel J. 2014. A new direction for science and values. Synthese 191: 3271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, Debra S. 2010. Sexual violence: A medical center responds. Health Progress 91 (1): 5658.Google ScholarPubMed
Holman, Bennett. 2019. An ethical obligation to ignore the unreliable. Synthese 198: 5825–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02483-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
hooks, bell. 2004. The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York: Atria Books.Google Scholar
Kahlenborn, Chris, Peck, Rebecca, and Severs, Walter B.. 2015. Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Linacre Quarterly 82 (1): 1833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahlenborn, Chris, Stanford, Joseph B., and Larimore, Walter L.. 2002. Postfertilization effect of hormonal emergency contraception. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 36 (3): 465–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2015. State health facts: Medicaid coverage of emergency contraceptives. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/medicaid-coverage-of-emergency-contraceptives/.Google Scholar
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). 2018. State health facts: Distribution of the nonelderly with Medicaid by race/ethnicity. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity-4/.Google Scholar
Katikireddi, S. Vittal, and Valles, Sean A.. 2015. Coupled ethical–epistemic analysis of public health research and practice: Categorizing variables to improve population health and equity. American Journal of Public Health 105 (1): e3642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, Ian James, Medina, José, and Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr., eds. 2017. The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2016. Should some knowledge be forbidden? The case of cognitive differences research. Philosophy of Science 83 (5): 779–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kugle, Scott. 2007. Sufis and saints’ bodies: Mysticism, corporeality, and sacred power in Islam. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2010. The ethics and cultural politics of reproductive risk warnings: A case study of California's Proposition 65. Health, Risk & Society 12 (4): 323–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalitkumar, P. G. L., Lalitkumar, S., Meng, C. X., Stavreus-Evers, A., Hambiliki, F., Bentin-Ley, U., and Gemzell-Danielsson, K.. 2007. Mifepristone, but not levonorgestrel, inhibits human blastocyst attachment to an in vitro endometrial three-dimensional cell culture model. Human Reproduction 22 (11): 3031–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larimore, Walter L., and Stanford, Joseph B.. 2000. Postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and their relationship to informed consent. Archives of Family Medicine 9 (2): 126–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larimore, Walter L., Stanford, Joseph B., and Kahlenborn, Chris. 2004. Does pregnancy begin at fertilization? Family Medicine 36 (10): 690–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Little, Margaret Olivia. 1999. Abortion, intimacy, and the duty to gestate. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2 (3): 295312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 2005. The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Schweizer, Vanessa J.. 2014. Objectivity and a comparison of methodological scenario approaches for climate change research. Synthese 191 (10): 2049–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 1996. Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science, ed. Nelson, Lynn Hankinson and Nelson, Jack. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lyerly, Anne Drapkin, Mitchell, Lisa M., Armstrong, Elizabeth Mitchell, Harris, Lisa H., Kukla, Rebecca, Kuppermann, Miriam, and Little, Margaret Olivia. 2009. Risk and the pregnant body. Hastings Center Report 39 (6): 3442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manne, Kate. 2018. Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McLeod, Carolyn. 2010. Harm or mere inconvenience? Denying women emergency contraception. Hypatia 25 (1): 1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medina, José. 2013. The epistemology of resistance: Gender and racial oppression, epistemic injustice, and resistant imaginations. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Patricia. 2015. Good Catholics: The battle over abortion in the Catholic Church. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Murata, Sachiko. 1992. The Tao of Islam: A sourcebook on gender relationships in Islamic thought. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Patel, Priti. 2017. Forced sterilization of women as discrimination. Public Health Reviews 38: 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr. 2012. Relational knowing and epistemic injustice: Toward a theory of willful hermeneutical ignorance. Hypatia 27 (4): 715–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr. 2014. Discerning the primary epistemic harm in cases of testimonial injustice. Social Epistemology 28 (2): 99114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr.. 2017. Varieties of epistemic injustice. In The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice, ed. Kidd, Ian James, Medina, José, and Pohlhaus, Gaile Jr. Abingdon, UK, and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prescott, Heather Munro. 2011. The morning after: A history of emergency contraception in the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raviele, Kathleen. 2014. Levonorgestrel in cases of rape: How does it work? Linacre Quarterly 81 (2): 117–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raviele, Kathleen, Kahlenborn, Chris, Peck, Rebecca, Ruppersberger, Les, Yeung, Patrick Jr., Tham, Joseph, and Gutowski, Matthew J.. 2015. Statement on emergency contraception in cases of rape. Catholic Medical Association. http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/CMA_Statement_on_EC_After_Rape_(NCBC_edited_version)_PDF.pdf.Google Scholar
Reiheld, Alison. 2010. Patient complains of . . .: How medicalization mediates power and justice. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 3 (1): 7298.Google Scholar
Reznik, Sandra E. 2010. Plan B: How it works. Health Progress 91: 5961.Google ScholarPubMed
Richardson, Sarah S. 2010. Feminist philosophy of science: History, contributions, and challenges. Synthese 177 (3): 337–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. 1996. Reconstructing the patient: Starting with women of color. In Feminism and bioethics: Beyond reproduction, ed. M, Susan. Wolf. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Dorothy E. 1997. Killing the Black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Ross, Loretta, Roberts, Lynn, Derkas, Erika, Peoples, Whitney, and Toure, Pamela Bridgewater, ed. 2017. Radical reproductive justice: Foundation, theory, practice, critique. New York: The Feminist Press at CUNY.Google Scholar
Sampson, Olivia, Navarro, Sandy K., Khan, Amna, Hearst, Norman, Raine, Tina R., Gold, Marji, Miller, Suellen, and de Bocanegra, Heike Thiel. 2009. Barriers to adolescents’ getting emergency contraception through pharmacy access in California: Differences by language and region. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 41 (2): 110–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schiebinger, Londa. 2001. Has feminism changed science? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, Johanna. 2005. Choice and coercion: Birth control, sterilization, and abortion in public health and welfare. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Scully, Jackie Leach. 2018. From “she would say that, wouldn't she?” to “does she take sugar?” Epistemic injustice and disability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 11 (1): 106–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shacter, Hannah E., Gee, Rebekah E., and Long, Judith A.. 2007. Variation in availability of emergency contraception in pharmacies. Contraception 75 (3): 214–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, Susan. 1992. No longer patient: Feminist ethics and health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Smugar, Steven S., Spina, Bernadette J., and Merz, Jon F.. 2000. Informed consent for emergency contraception: Variability in hospital care of rape victims. American Journal of Public Health 90 (9): 1372–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Solomon, Miriam. 2012. The web of valief: An assessment of feminist radical empiricism. In Out from the shadows: Analytical feminist contributions to traditional philosophy, ed. Crasnow, Sharon and Superson, Anita. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, Joseph B. 2011a. Fertility respect. SquareTwo 4 (1). http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleStanfordNFP.html.Google Scholar
Stanford, Joseph B. 2011b. Testimonies: Joseph B. Stanford. Mormon scholars testify. https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/joseph-b-stanford.Google Scholar
Stanford, Joseph B., David Hager, W., and Crockett, Susan A.. 2004. The FDA, politics, and Plan B: To the editor. New England Journal of Medicine 350 (23): 2413–14.Google Scholar
Subramaniam, Banu. 2009. Moored metamorphoses: A retrospective essay on feminist science studies. Signs 34 (4): 951–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talone, Sr. Patricia. 2010. A time of special need. Health Progress 91: 55.Google ScholarPubMed
Tschann, Mary, and Soon, Reni. 2015. Contraceptive coverage and the Affordable Care Act. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 42 (4): 605–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuana, Nancy. 2006. The speculum of ignorance: The women's health movement and epistemologies of ignorance. Hypatia 21 (3): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Myra J., Berg, Cynthia J., Callaghan, William M., and Hsia, Jason. 2007. The Black–white disparity in pregnancy-related mortality from 5 conditions: Differences in prevalence and case-fatality rates. American Journal of Public Health 97 (2): 247–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). 2009. Ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services. 5th ed. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf.Google Scholar
Uttley, Lois, Reynertson, Sheila, Kenny, Lorraine, Melling, Louise, and HasBrouck, Patricia. 2013. Miscarriage of medicine: The growth of Catholic hospitals and the threat to reproductive health care. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the MergerWatch Project. https://www.aclu.org/report/miscarriage-medicine.Google Scholar
Waggoner, Miranda R. 2015. Cultivating the maternal future: Public health and the prepregnant self. Signs 40 (4): 939–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatley, Marianne. 1988. Beyond compliance: Towards a feminist health education. In Feminism within the science and health care professions: Overcoming resistance, ed. Rosser, Sue. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Wilks, John. 2000. The impact of the pill on implantation factors: New research findings. Ethics and Medicine 16 (1): 1522.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilks, John. 2004. Why this pharmacy does not sell the “morning-after” pill. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wilks/wilks_05map.html.Google Scholar
Wood, Susan F. 2005. Women's health and the FDA. New England Journal of Medicine 353 (16): 1650–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO). 2019. World Health Organization model list of essential medicines, 21st list. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Wynn, Lisa L., and Trussell, James. 2006a. The social life of emergency contraception in the United States: Disciplining pharmaceutical use, disciplining sexuality, and constructing zygotic bodies. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20 (3): 297320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, Lisa L., and Trussell, James. 2006b. Images of American sexuality in debates over nonprescription access to emergency contraceptive pills. Obstetrics and Gynecology 108 (5): 1272–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Chelsey. 2020. The inequity of conscientious objection: Refusal of emergency contraception. Nursing Ethics 27 (6): 1408–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Imposing Values and Enforcing Gender through Knowledge: Epistemic Oppression with the Morning-after Pill's Drug Label
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Imposing Values and Enforcing Gender through Knowledge: Epistemic Oppression with the Morning-after Pill's Drug Label
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Imposing Values and Enforcing Gender through Knowledge: Epistemic Oppression with the Morning-after Pill's Drug Label
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *