Samuels 1
Jennifer Samuels
Professor Ness-Santana
English 116
1 November 2014
The Power Governing the Uterus
Women’s reproductive health asks a very interesting question: who has the right to
govern the uterus and the rest of its supporting parts? History is filled with several examples of
women being unable to decide how to govern their own health. A current example is addressed
in the recent bestseller, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. In 1951, a woman named
Henrietta Lacks had cancer, was experimented on, and was left infertile. To this day, it is
unknown if she was ever given a choice in participating in the experiment, or even had the
knowledge to understand what was being done to her. Surprisingly, this is a topic that continues
to be challenged in today’s society. By addressing the historical influence as well as the manner
in which women’s reproductive rights continues to impact politics and medicine throughout
modern day society, it can clearly be seen that, try as they may, women are not the governors of
women’s reproductive health.
There are many historical medical cases that were instrumental in the shaping of society’s
views on women’s reproductive health. However, the three that really had an impact concerning
female’s reproductive rights were the hysteria, Mississippi appendectomies, the case of Henrietta
Lacks, and birth control. Hysteria was the first ailment that was applied only to women, thus
defining them as weak creatures that were susceptible to this disorder that was, by definition,
linked to the uterus. It is seen in history as early as 2000B.C. and as late as the early 20th century.
The historic definition of hysteria is in terms that relate it to the uterus or the womb.
Samuels 2
In the Hippocratic corpus, hysteria is a disease of the womb, treatable with
exercise and massage. Plato’s reference to hysteria as a disease caused by the
uterus, ‘an animal inside in animal,’ is well known…. Galan (ca. A.D. 129-200),
the physician’s physician for centuries after his death, described hysteria as a
uterine disease caused by sexual deprivation , to which women were particularly
susceptible. (Maines 23-24)
Women were given this diagnosis if they had symptoms which could include fainting,
edema or hyperemia, nervousness, insomnia, muscle spasms, shortness of breath, loss of appetite
for food or sex, the tendency to sometimes cause trouble, or any other unfavorable reaction. The
cures could be as pleasurable as a manually stimulated orgasm by a doctor or midwife, or the
patient could have been prescribed with rest cure, which could lead to psychosis. These were two
very different prescriptions that could have been given, yet women did not get a choice in which
they could receive.
This allowed men to view women as inferior because of this disease that had a wide
range of symptoms all linked back to the uterus. Men were often put in a position of power or
control over a woman with hysteria, which is depicted in the short story, “The Yellow
Wallpaper,” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. The protagonist was a women who was diagnosed by
her doctor and husband, as having hysteria and needed to rest in a room with barred windows, a
locked door and a gate at the top of the stairs. The antagonist is her husband, who prescribed
what was common for the times, rest to cure her of her ailment. Since her mind was not
stimulated for three months she entered a state of psychosis in which she saw women coming out
of the ugly, yellow wallpaper that was plastered all over the walls of the room in which she lived.
This short story is, “regarded as an important early work of American feminist literature,
Samuels 3
illustrating attitudes in the 19th century towards women’s physical and mental health” (Perkins
vii). It was based off of Gilman’s own bout with severe depression. This is a classic example in
high culture that shows the importance of not assuming that all symptoms that could ail a woman
are the result of a disease that originates in the uterus.
The Mississippi appendectomies were involuntary surgical sterilizations against all
women from roughly 1934 through the 1980’s. It is clear that women of color were the main
target. The Mississippi appendectomies were discovered, “[I]n June 1973, [when] the abuse of
two young sisters in Montgomery, Alabama, exposed the decades of stolen African American
fertility” (Washington 203). A lawsuit was filed and it was then that, “lawyers discovered that
100,000 to 150,000 women had been sterilized using federal funds and half of these women were
black” (204). Many methods, including coercion and trickery, were used to force a woman to
have a hysterectomy. It was said that“[i]n the South, rendering black women infertile without
their knowledge during other surgery was so common that the procedure was called a
‘Mississippi appendectomy’” (204). The Mississippi Appendectomies is a very specific example
that demonstrates the lack of control that women had over their medical or reproductive rights.
Worse still, is the fact that the people who were in a position of power over these women were
not family members; it was the doctors making all of the decisions for the patients.
The most significant case surrounding consent and fertility was the case of Henrietta
Lacks. She was a poor black woman who discovered in January 1951 that she had cervical
cancer. Doctors were treating her with the approved remedy of the time, radium.
Towards the end of her treatments, Henrietta asked her doctor when she’d be
better so she could have another child. Until that moment, Henrietta didn’t know
Samuels 4
that the treatments had left her infertile…. [I]n Henrietta’s medical record one of
her doctors wrote, ‘Told she could not have any more children. Says if she had
been told so before, she would have not gone through with treatment.’ But by the
time she found out, it was too late. (Skloot 47-48)
All women can feel empathy for Henrietta. To have been given a treatment without being told
that pregnancy is no longer an option, is devastating. This goes against a women’s right to
choose when to reproduce. Not giving Henrietta Lacks the option to decide on whether or not to
continue with the treatment is appalling. After all, pregnancy is often seen as a desired physical
state for women to be in; so much that women now use various pharmaceutical and holistic
treatments in order to become pregnant. To have the ability to reproduce taken away without
one’s knowledge must be so difficult, yet her doctor’s showed no care for what this women went
through.
Birth control has had a very interesting history with regard to its use, which has also
helped shaped women’s reproductive health today. While women have been using modern birth
control for several decades now, during the beginning stages most women were unaware of the
potential risks or side effects that occurred with its use. Birth control was seen as a way to limit
the African American population during a time when eugenics was popular. Clinics were built in
predominantly African American neighborhoods from 1939 through the early 1990’s, to
introduce the African American population to birth control. African Americans were using FDA
approved birth control years before Anglo women were using the same medication. This was just
so that researchers could become aware of any side effects and alter the medication to make it
more desirable to Anglo women. The proliferation of birth control clinics were seen as unethical
because, “they were [also] intended to selectively reduce births within the group…. Some
Samuels 5
contraceptive initiatives did richly earn the ‘genocide’ label” (Washington 201). This clearly
demonstrates the power that the United States government had over controlling a group, in this
case black women.
These historical events influenced modern medicine, with regards to women’s
reproductive health, in several ways; the most notable would be the Belmont Report. It is partly
because of the aforementioned cases, as well as many others, that led the federal government to
create the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research (NCPHSBBR), in the United States. “The National Commission drafted the
guidelines that have become known as the Belmont Report, which articulated the principles of
respect, beneficence, and justice in conducting research” (RamaRao 231). This would prevent
women from going into surgery to remove a gallbladder, only to later learn that their doctor took
their uterus as well. This document provides much needed structure and continuity throughout
the medical community by providing ethical guidelines as well as addressing problems before
they arise. The manner in which the Belmont Report does this, is by clearly defining various
medical terminologies such as research, practice, informed consent, disclosure, comprehension,
and voluntary decision making. However, the Belmont Report is not perfect, and the flaw is
acknowledged once the difference of power is brought to light.
While it is remarkable to know that the Belmont Report exists to protect citizens from
doctors with a god-like complex, a person could be faced with a situation in which there is an
imbalance in power between themselves and their caregiver. After all, doctors are well educated
and respected in society. Patients often believe that they do not have the right to tell a medical
professional that they do not agree with a diagnosis or treatment. An example of this situation is
when a “physician conducting a study also provides routine care. Patients may feel pressure to
Samuels 6
join a study in order to please their physician/ provider or because they fear that choosing not to
participate will result in lower care” (233). Many patients may not have the financial means or
transportation to simply change physicians. This creates an environment in which the doctor is
given an abundance of power. Only when the power has become equilibrated will patients really
trust that doctors have their best interest at heart, and maybe then doctors will not be constantly
under scrutiny.
However there are a few doctors that are making such great attempts to please their
patients they choose to withhold medical information that could be very beneficial to the patient.
One case that is very specific to women’s reproduction is with reference to the Human
Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Currently a vaccine has been approved to prevent and protect
prepubescent children from becoming infected with HPV later on in life. This is the same virus
that can cause cervical cancer in women, penile cancer in men as well as genital warts. HPV is a
sexually transmitted infection and the vaccine is most effective when given to young people
before they become sexually active. The controversy surrounding this vaccine only lies with
inoculating the girls, and not the boys, because of the gender stereotypes regarding sex in this
society. This poses a problem to doctors that may not know the religious, moral, or ethical views
of parents of their patients.
Less than a year before a vaccine to prevent human papillomavirus (HPV)
infection in females was approved… fewer than half of U.S. pediatricians
surveyed said that they would offer such a vaccine for 10-12 year-old females if
one were available. A majority of respondents felt that parents would be upset if
they offered to vaccinate a 10-12 year-old against an STD. (Hollander 121).
Samuels 7
Politically this puts doctors in a tough place; they can either do what is best for the patient or
what’s best for the parent. As it was clearly demonstrated, most doctors would choose the latter,
because the parents are paying the bill.
Political representatives have taken it upon themselves to use their belief systems to
dictate what should be done in modern medicine. An example of politics stepping in and
governing the masses is very apparent in the controversial topic of access to emergency
contraceptives. “Currently there are four FDA-approved products on the market. Three… are
approved for preventing pregnancy when taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex…. The
fourth product, Ella can be taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex” (Guttmacher 1). While it is
nice to have options; there are still, “six states [that] explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to
dispense contraceptives, including emergency contraception” (1). Women need these options,
however politicians are taking the bible and using it dictate women’s reproductive health options.
The issue of reproductive freedom, or lack thereof, can be seen all throughout politics.
Issues such as abortion have been ripping apart the political parties, as well as the nation. Betty
Friendan, author of The Feminine Mystique, asked her readers to, “Consider in 1996 that the
issue of abortion as women’s choice was the crucial issue splitting the Republican party”
(Friedan 20). Since then women have made gains to prove their political power by establishing
that women are more likely to register to vote than men. This increases their political power by
increasing their strength in numbers. Some of the topics that influence women to vote for a
particular candidate include issues such as, “family leave, the right to women not to be forced out
of hospitals less than 48 hours after giving birth, the right of parents to take time off to take
children to the dentist, or for a parent-teacher appointment became serious political business”
Samuels 8
(Friedan 20). This clearly demonstrates the manner in which women have made advances
towards shifting the political power off of men and onto themselves.
Fast forward to January 2011, and one would be amazed that women have overcame such
obstacles such as the right to choose. The Senate in the state of Mississippi made it illegal to,
“intentionally assist a minor in obtaining an abortion without the parental consent mandated by
state law, even if the procedure was performed in a state where parental involvement was not
required” (Guttmacher Monthly). Just to clarify, if a minor from Mississippi goes to a state
where it is legal to obtain an abortion without parental consent, the doctor can be charged with
committing a crime, because it is not legal for a minor to obtain an abortion without parental
consent in Mississippi. This really is a backward bill that just recently came out of the state. All
females need to have access to safe abortions so that they are able to protect themselves from the
dangers of illegal abortions; after all women in desperate situations are capable of acting out in
desperate ways.
While it might seem depressing that women’s rights are being challenged, there are still
some states that agree with the current United States Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton,
when she asserted, “’women’s rights are human rights’ to the whole world” (Friedan 25). Take
California for example, they were the pioneers when it came to enacting a safe haven law that
allows mothers to abandon their newborns at safe haven spots, such as hospitals, police and fire
stations. This allows mothers another option in case they are either against abortion, they were
unable to obtain one, or maybe the mother was unable to set up a formal adoption prior to
delivering the child. Regardless of the reason, this is just another manner in which a mother is
able to put the infant up for adoption. That state of California makes it known that
Samuels 9
The Safely Surrendered Baby Law responds to the increasing number of newborn
infant deaths due to abandonment in unsafe locations. First created in January
2001, the Safely Surrendered Baby Law was signed permanently into state law in
January 2006. The law’s intent is to save lives of newborn infants at risk of
abandonment by encouraging parents or persons with lawful custody to safely
surrender the infant within 72 hours of birth, with no questions asked
(Babysafe.ca.gov).
This law considers trends, not personal views or opinions, in making an attempt to prevent other
mothers from killing their newborn infants out of desperation. Currently, there are 34 states and
Washington D.C that allow a person leaving the infant to remain anonymous. It is important for
politicians to recognize instances when their personal beliefs hinder those around them.
There are many historical cases, such as hysteria, Mississippi appendectomies, the case of
Henrietta Lacks as well as birth control that have shaped the way we view medicine today. While
it can be seen that some states, such as California, are doing their best to provide safe options to
its citizens, there are others, such as Mississippi, that are trying to keep this country in a
medieval society. The only option is to remain vigilant, and let each state’s representatives know
that this country does not tolerate patients not having the power to govern their own bodies. The
case of Henrietta lacks happened only 60 years ago, and birth control clinics used for eugenics
was still happening up until last decade. By studying these atrocious medical histories it is then
that politics and medicine can change to provide safe options for women and their reproductive
health.
Samuels 10
Works Cited
”Emergency Contraception” Guttmacher.org. Guttmacher Institute. 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Nov.
2011.
Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystique. New York, NY: Norton & Company Inc. 2001. Print
Friedland, Barbara, Saumya, RamaRao, John W. Townsend. “A Question of Ethics: Research
and Practice in Reproductive Health.” Jstor.org. Studies in Family Planning. 38.4. Dec.
2007. PDF file. 13 Nov. 2011.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Forgotten books.com 2008. PDF file. 13 Nov.
2011.
Hollander, D. “Many Pediatricians Are Reluctant to Vaccinate Young Females against Human
Papillomavirus”. Jstor.org. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. Guttmacher
Institute. 39. 2. June 2007. PDF file. 13 Nov. 2011.
“Monthly State Update: MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN 2011” Guttmacher.org Guttmacher
Institute. 1 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.
“Safely Surrendered Baby Law” Babysafe.ca.gov. Department of Social Services. 2007. Web. 13
Nov. 2011
Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: Broadway Paperbacks,
2010. Print.
Washington, Henrietta A. Medical Apartheid. New York: Harlem Moon, 2006. Print.
Samuels 11