Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/health/research/15pregnant.html

February 15, 2011

Report Details Sabotage of Birth Control

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Men who abuse women physically and emotionally may also sabotage their partners’ birth control, pressuring them to become pregnant against their will, new reports suggest.

Several small studies have described this kind of coercion among low-income teenagers and young adults with a history of violence by intimate partners. Now, a report being released Tuesday by the federally financed National Domestic Violence Hotline says 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling the hot line said a partner had pressured them to become pregnant, told them not to use contraceptives, or forced them to have unprotected sex.

The report was based on answers from more than 3,000 women, but it was not a research study, those involved said.

“It was very eye-opening,” said Lisa James, director of health at the Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco, which worked with the hot line on the report. “There were stories about men refusing to wear a condom, forcing sex without a condom, poking holes in condoms, flushing birth control pills down the toilet.

“There were lots of stories about hiding the birth control pills — that she kept ‘losing’ her birth control pills, until she realized that he was hiding them,” Ms. James added.

One respondent described having to hide in the bathroom to take her pill. Another said that when she got her period recently, her partner was “furious.”

The hot line’s report did not include a comparison group and did not gather information about the participants, who were questioned anonymously; nor was it published in a peer-reviewed journal. It was based on answers to four questions posed to 3,169 women around the country who contacted the domestic violence hot line between Aug. 16 and Sept. 26, 2010, who were not in immediate danger and who agreed to participate. About 6,800 callers refused to answer the questions.

Of those who did respond, about a quarter said yes to one or more of these three questions: “Has your partner or ex ever told you not to use any birth control?” “Has your partner or ex-partner ever tried to force or pressure you to become pregnant?” “Has your partner or ex ever made you have sex without a condom so that you would get pregnant?”

One in six answered yes to the question “Has your partner or ex-partner ever taken off the condom during sex so that you would get pregnant?”

The questions were devised by Dr. Elizabeth Miller, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine at the University of California, Davis, whose earlier papers on reproductive coercion prompted interest in the subject.

“It’s really important to recognize reproductive coercion as another mechanism for control in an unhealthy relationship,” Dr. Miller said. At the same time, she added, younger women and girls dating older men may be confused by the pressure to become pregnant.

“If you can put yourself in the shoes of a 15-year-old dating an 18- or 19-year-old man, which is not an unusual scenario, and he says to her, ‘We’re going to make beautiful babies together,’ that’s pretty seductive.”

But Dr. Miller said more research was needed to understand the men’s motivations.

“One of the things that comes up a lot is: What are the guys thinking?” she said, adding that her own research suggested some answers.

“Some have an intense desire for a nuclear family, and many who had experiences of a dysfunctional family home want something better,” she said. Some young men, she said, “want to leave a legacy, and say, ‘I’m not sure how long I’m going to be around.’ Gang-affiliated young men want the status that comes with having babies from multiple women.”

Dr. Miller’s paper, published last year in the journal Contraception, reported that at five family planning clinics in Northern California, one-third of 683 female patients whose partners were physically abusive said the men had also pressured them to become pregnant or had sabotaged their birth control. Of 191 women who reported birth control sabotage, 79 percent also reported physical abuse, the study found.

The associations help explain why young victims of violence by intimate partners are at an increased risk for unplanned pregnancies and for sexually transmitted diseases.

Ms. James, of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, said that despite the new attention to reproductive coercion, she doubted it was a new phenomenon.

“I just think not enough people have been asking the question,” she said.

SAY NO - UNiTE to Stop Violence Against Mothers And Their Children

Please go to link below sign in and SAY NO-UNiTE To End Violence Against Women AND THEIR CHILDREN.

Stop Violence Against Mothers And Their Children

As many are aware, there is a silent genocide occurring against women. This is part of a major reason why women all over the world are united to end violence against women.  What many do not know or connect is that a lot of women experiencing violence perpetrated against them are also mothers.  Many ads on stopping violence against women portray women without children as a means to get the message across clearly; but they fail to represent the large proportion of mothers in this situation. 

Experts in intimate partner violence have noted that there is a high correlation between abuse and pregnancy.  Some scholars state that this is because they are envious of the relationship between the mother and the child.  Using violence, coercion and control is often part of the effort to destroy these bonds.  The problem then exacerbates when a mother tries to leave--often not to save herself but to save the child.  Leaving is one of the most dangerous times for all women enduring intimate partner violence, and, accompanied with an inadequate system, the odds are stacked against her.  With a community plagued by stereotypes on child custody cases, closed courtrooms and loopholes in laws compounded by pop-psychology, we have a situation where most mothers in this predicament are torn away from the children they tried to protect.  In the 1980s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”.  This term remained a term only, because most of the scientific community rejected it.  His literature promoted ideas that victims of abuse were mentally ill and deliberately raised concerns about the abuse as an act of hate.  Dr Richard Gardner also testified in a homicide case where a mother was shot 13 times.  Gardner claimed that her “alienating behavior” drove him to kill her.  Although the scientific community rejected Parent Alienation Syndrome, the legal community embraced it.  Carefully removing the word "syndrome", the belief set remained.  Whilst his work began in US, he traveled around the world promoting these ideas to court professionals and others who had a direct influence on child custody case outcomes.  Some organizations that offer training for judges even held workshops on “maternal gate-keeping”, which trivialized the experiences of women and children leaving intimate partner violence.   Whilst Dr. Gardner passed away several years ago, his doctrine lives on and others have polished up his work to continue its grave influence upon the legal community. 

Mothers are often subjected to degrading treatment within the courtrooms where they are forced to deny their experiences and their need to survive and protect--or they will face jail.  All legal avenues within this culture are blocked.  This is why we have a battered mothers custody conference where mothers, professionals and young people unite to end violence against women and children through the system.  It is why I traveled all the way from Australia to be there this year amongst others who have also traveled from other parts of the globe to attend.  It is a global issue that affects many.  This year, Holly Ann Collins, the first American to receive asylum in Netherlands, spoke about her ordeal.  Revered by many as a brave mother who, against all odds, was able to save herself and her children.  She was listed and hunted by US as an abductor even though they knew why she ran.  She arrived at the airport with a suitcase of evidence which led to her being granted asylum.  She was hard on herself because she did not do it sooner.  Whilst leaving with the children under these circumstances should be seen as the best thing to do, there is no legal avenue to do so.  Some laws and treaties appear from the surface to have some consideration of women and children experiencing violence, but the processes, culture, economics and ambiguity of the situation stifle opportunities to do so.  Holly Ann Collins' outcome is a rare one.  We need better laws that protect mothers and children from violence without punishment or further victimization. 

As many are aware, there is a silent genocide occurring against women. This is part of a major reason why women all over the world are united to end violence against women.  What many do not know or connect is that a lot of women experiencing violence perpetrated against them are also mothers.  Many ads on stopping violence against women portray women without children as a means to get the message across clearly; but they fail to represent the large proportion of mothers in this situation. 

Experts in intimate partner violence have noted that there is a high correlation between abuse and pregnancy.  Some scholars state that this is because they are envious of the relationship between the mother and the child.  Using violence, coercion and control is often part of the effort to destroy these bonds.  The problem then exacerbates when a mother tries to leave--often not to save herself but to save the child.  Leaving is one of the most dangerous times for all women enduring intimate partner violence, and, accompanied with an inadequate system, the odds are stacked against her.  With a community plagued by stereotypes on child custody cases, closed courtrooms and loopholes in laws compounded by pop-psychology, we have a situation where most mothers in this predicament are torn away from the children they tried to protect.  In the 1980s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”.  This term remained a term only, because most of the scientific community rejected it.  His literature promoted ideas that victims of abuse were mentally ill and deliberately raised concerns about the abuse as an act of hate.  Dr Richard Gardner also testified in a homicide case where a mother was shot 13 times.  Gardner claimed that her “alienating behavior” drove him to kill her.  Although the scientific community rejected Parent Alienation Syndrome, the legal community embraced it.  Carefully removing the word "syndrome", the belief set remained.  Whilst his work began in US, he traveled around the world promoting these ideas to court professionals and others who had a direct influence on child custody case outcomes.  Some organizations that offer training for judges even held workshops on “maternal gate-keeping”, which trivialized the experiences of women and children leaving intimate partner violence.   Whilst Dr. Gardner passed away several years ago, his doctrine lives on and others have polished up his work to continue its grave influence upon the legal community. 

Mothers are often subjected to degrading treatment within the courtrooms where they are forced to deny their experiences and their need to survive and protect--or they will face jail.  All legal avenues within this culture are blocked.  This is why we have a battered mothers custody conference where mothers, professionals and young people unite to end violence against women and children through the system.  It is why I traveled all the way from Australia to be there this year amongst others who have also traveled from other parts of the globe to attend.  It is a global issue that affects many.  This year, Holly Ann Collins, the first American to receive asylum in Netherlands, spoke about her ordeal.  Revered by many as a brave mother who, against all odds, was able to save herself and her children.  She was listed and hunted by US as an abductor even though they knew why she ran.  She arrived at the airport with a suitcase of evidence which led to her being granted asylum.  She was hard on herself because she did not do it sooner.  Whilst leaving with the children under these circumstances should be seen as the best thing to do, there is no legal avenue to do so.  Some laws and treaties appear from the surface to have some consideration of women and children experiencing violence, but the processes, culture, economics and ambiguity of the situation stifle opportunities to do so.  Holly Ann Collins' outcome is a rare one.  We need better laws that protect mothers and children from violence without punishment or further victimization. 

 

SPONSORED by UN MOTHERS

CONTACT INFORMATION

Name: UN Mothers

Title: Advocate

Email: smith@ssl-mail.com

OTHER PARTNERS

American Mothers Political Party

Australian Mothers Political Party

Battered Mothers Custody Conference