Beyond Roe: Reproductive Justice in a Changing World
Throughout 2013, five law schools in the Delaware Valley will hold events exploring various aspects of reproductive justice in the 40 years post-Roe v. Wade. The final event in this series is a conference sponsored by the Rutgers School of Law – Camden that will take place on Friday, October 11 on the Rutgers campus in Camden, New Jersey.
We are pleased to invite proposals for papers and panels. The conference theme is Beyond Roe: Reproductive Justice in a Changing World. We welcome submissions on any topic related to the law, policy and reproduction, including avoiding reproduction, public policy related to reproduction, and reproductive regulation post-Roe.
Paper abstracts should be no more than 500 words, accompanied by a descriptive title for the paper proposed. Proposed panels should include a description of the overall topic, as well as a panel title and the titles of all the papers and panelists to be included in the panel. Panels should include no less than 4 proposed panelists. Panel proposals should also be no more than 500 words. All submissions must include the names, e-mail addresses, and full affiliations of all authors. In the case of panels and co-authored papers, please identify a corresponding author and provide sufficient detail in your abstract or proposal so that reviewers can fully assess your proposal and determine how it will fit with other proposals being reviewed.
There will be two plenary sessions at the conference and some submitted papers might be selected for plenary presentations. If you wish for us to consider your paper for a plenary session, please indicate that desire on your submission.
Please e-mail submissions (in .doc, .docx, or .pdf format) to beyondroe@camlaw.rutgers.edu by April 1, 2013. If you have any questions about the conference, please direct them to Kimberly Mutcherson at mutchers@camden.rutgers.edu.
We invite submissions from other disciplines including philosophy, the social sciences, critical cultural studies (gender and sexuality studies, disability studies, critical race studies, etc.), public health, and others.
–
Janet Golden, Ph.D.
Professor
History Department
Rutgers University
Camden, NJ 08102
website: http://golden.rutgers.edu/
This blog, developed by http://nursingclio.wordpress.com/authors/,
is likely to be of interest to WHOM listmembers.
Karen
============
From: Cheryl Lemus <cheryllemus@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Subject: Blog: Nursing Clio
I would like to announce our blog, Nursing Clio, to H-Amstdy.
“Nursing Clio is a collaborative blog project that ties historical
scholarship to present-day political, social, and cultural issues
surrounding gender and medicine. Men’s and women’s bodies, their
reproductive rights, and their health care are often at the center of
political debate and have also become a large part of the social and
cultural discussions in popular media. Whether the topic is abortion, birth
control, sex, or the pregnant body, each and every one of these issues is
embedded with historical dynamics of race, class, and gender. Our tagline -
The Personal is Historical – is meant to convey that the medical debates
that dominate today’s headlines are, in fact, ongoing dialogues that reach
far back into our country’s past.
The mission of Nursing Clio is to provide a platform for historians, health
care workers, community activists, students, and the public at large to
engage in socio-political and cultural critiques of this ongoing and
historical debate over the gendered body. It is our contention that Nursing
Clio will provide a coherent, intelligent, informative, and fun historical
source for these issues.”
We look forward to H-Amstdy subscribers to come and take a look, and even
make some comments. http://nursingclio.wordpress.com/
Best wishes,
Cheryl Lemus
Dear all,
Sorry I missed the breakfast this year — and thanks to Lara Freidenfelds for working so hard to encourage broad participation, and for inviting those of us who weren’t there to share new scholarship.
I recently published an article on the medical-legal history of artificial insemination in the US, based on material I presented at AAHM in 2011:
“Adultery by Doctor: Artificial Insemination, 1890-1945,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 2, 591-633, 2012
The full article is available for download here: http://works.bepress.com/kara_swanson/
For those of you particularly interested in the topic, another article focused on the research at the University of Iowa that led to the first use of frozen-thawed sperm in human artificial insemination should be appearing in the summer issue of the Annals of Iowa. Title: “Fatherhood After Death: The Mid-Century Origins of the Sperm Bank.”
Thanks to those WHOMers who gave me feedback on these pieces, at AAHM, by reading drafts, and through peer review!
Best,
Kara Swanson
Kara W. Swanson, J.D., Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Northeastern University School of Law
400 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
(617) 373-8288
k.swanson@neu.edu
Office: 37 Cargill
——–
Dear All,
I’d like to share news of a recent publication that Elizabeth Toon and I co-authored, “‘Here Man Learns About Himself!’: Visual Education and the Rise and Fall of the American Museum of Health.” It is online at
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300560?journalCode=ajph.
Cheers,
Erin McLeary
Independent Scholar
Exhibit Developer, National Constitution Center
Philadelphia, PA
—————–
Dear WHOM:
I managed to get four things published in 2011, as I reported at the Women Historians’ Breakfast in Baltimore:
A review of the book on Oliver Wendell Holmes edited by Scott Podolsky and Charles Bryan, in the Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences;
An essay (“Anticipatory grieving”) in the on-line Hektoen International: A Journal of Medical Humanities;
An article (“The Library of the Royal Society of PHysicians in Budapest becomes today’s Semmelweis Medical History Library”)–written in collaboration with two of my
Hungarian colleagues–in the Journal of the Medical Library Association; and
A book chapter(“Simpson and Semmelweis: Debating the Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever”) in James Young Simpson: Lad o Pairts (edited by Alison Nuttall and
Rosemary Mander), published in conjunction with a Symposium in Edinburgh (where I also presented a version of this as a paper) celebrating the bicentennial of
Simpson’s birth.
If these sometimes seem to me like small potatoes, I like to think of them as seed potatoes–there will be a bigger harvest one of these years!
Constance Putnam
—————–
Sorry to have missed the WHOM breakfast which is always such a treat and invigorating event which helps sustain the long desert days of work.Lara mentioned that it would be good to send in information on current publications to the WHOM listserve. I have a chapter in a new book (see below), Instituting Reform. The Social Museum of Harvard University, 1903-1933 which documents how Francis G. Peabody attempted to teach social ethics to Harvard students through the use of visual materials amid the often conflicting tensions prevalent in the early Progressive Era. The book contains reproductions of a great deal of visual material relating to health issues that is potentially of special interest to medical and public health historians period as well as access to the Museum’s original collection. http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/Book.asp?isbn=9780300171068
I look forward to participating in future gatherings of WHOM, perhaps next year…
Julie K. Brown, M.A., Ph.D.
Independent Scholar
Research Associate, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution
Faculty Associate, Center for Medical Humanities and Ethics, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio
———-
Dear WHOM members,
I’d like to draw to your attention some pieces of mine which I hope will have value to those working on a range of historical periods (in particular the e-article ‘Galen and the widow’ which does a close reading of some of the early materials used in Rachel Maines’ work) – see at the end of this message – and also a conference I am co-organising on ‘Retelling familiar tales of pregnancy and birth’, 3-4 July 2012 Oxford, which is aimed at a range of disciplines and periods: see departu.com for more information.
Thanks for your time!
Helen
Helen King
Professor of Classical Studies| The Open University| Walton Hall| Milton Keynes| MK7 6AA
Module Chair, A219, ‘Exploring the Classical World’ (http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/a219/index.shtml)
Recent podcasts: On ancient medicine, and ‘Gladiator’, April 2012:
http://www8.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/professor-helen-king-ancient-medicine-and-the-flashing-midwife (NB the full content is not available if accessed on an iPad)
On Agnodike the ‘flashing midwife’, March 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkMILds1Gg4&feature=youtu.be
On the Hippocratic Oath, with Peter Pormann and Vivian Nutton, September 2011:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014gdqq/In_Our_Time_The_Hippocratic_Oath/
Recently published: ‘History without Historians? Medical History and the Internet’, Social History of Medicine 25 (2012), 212-221 and ‘Response to Shelton’, Social History of Medicine 25 (February 2012), 232-238
‘Inside and outside, cavities and containers: the organs of generation in seventeenth-century English medicine’ in Patricia A. Baker, Han Nijdam, Karine van ‘t Land (eds.), Medicine and Space: Body, Surroundings and Borders in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Visualising the Middle Ages (4). Leiden: Brill, December 2011, pp. 37–60
‘Galen and the widow. Towards a history of therapeutic masturbation in ancient gynaecology’, EuGeStA: Journal on Gender Studies in Antiquity 1 (December 2011), 205-235 (http://eugesta.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/revue/pdf/2011/King.pdf)
–
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
Dear Whomers, I would like to draw your attention to the peer-reviewed Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, and Engineering project. http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/index.html This project is funded by the European Commission, the NSF, and Stanford University, and has been developed through a series interdisciplinary, collaborative workshops in Europe and the US.
Gendered Innovations employ sex and gender analysis as a resource to create new knowledge. It is a next step in 30 years of sex/gender in science and medicine scholarship. Specifically, the Gendered Innovations project: 1) develops practical methods of sex and gender analysis for scientists, medical researchers, and engineers; 2) provides case studies as concrete illustrations of how sex and gender analysis leads to innovation. We have about 11 case studies posted and are developing about 7 more.
Our health & medicine case studies include: Heart Disease in Women; Osteoporosis Research in Men; and De-Gendering the Knee. Also of interest are: the Genetics of Sex Determination, Animal Research, and Stem Cells. The engineering case studies are fun. I suggest Pregnant Crash Test Dummies, HIV Microbicides, or Water.
The website is intended for researchers and also for our students. You might find it interesting to use in classes.
All best, Londa
Professor Londa Schiebinger
John L. Hinds Professor of the History of Science, Stanford University
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPST/schiebinger.html
Director, EU/US Gendered Innovations in Science, Health & Medicine, and Engineering
Dear Colleagues, This is the latest methodology for gender in science, health & Medicine, and Engineering! Check it out. All best, Londa
launching at: http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/
gendered innovations employ sex and gender analysis as a resource to create new knowledge and technology. The Gendered Innovations project:
1. Develops practical methods of sex and gender analysis for science, health & medicine, and engineering.
2. Provides case studies as concrete illustrations of how sex and gender analysis leads to innovation.
Three years in the making, the project was funded by Stanford University and the European Commission. It draws upon experts from across both the EU and the US.
Have a look!
All best,
Londa Schiebinger, John L. Hinds professor of the History of Science
Stanford University
Ineke Klinge, Associate Professor of Gender Medicine
Maastricht University
Martina Schraudner, Professor of Gender and Diversity in Organizations
Technical University; Strategic Research Planning, Fraunhofer, Berlin
The federal government on Friday proposed sweeping revisions to rules governing scientific research involving human subjects with the intent of extending protections to a larger number of people while simultaneously streamlining the oversight and paperwork required of scientists.
The proposed changes would be the first in two decades to the “Common Rule” that governs nearly all human-subject research financed by American taxpayers. The changes would try to address features of the research landscape that were uncommon 20 years ago, such as the proliferation of clinical experiments conducted at multiple sites; the growth of research by drug companies; and the collection of biological specimens for permanent archiving.
“These proposals are designed to modernize, simplify and strengthen the current system,” said Howard K. Koh, an assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
The changes, which can be revised after 60 days of comment by the public, got an early warm welcome .
“I think this will really have quite a significant response from the research community,” said Heather Pierce, an official at the Association of American Medical Colleges, whose members include 135 U.S. and 17 Canadian medical schools, and more than 400 teaching hospitals. “I think it will be seen as moving human-research oversight into the 21st century.”
The Common Rule lays out a single set of requirements for informed consent, ethical oversight and human-subject protection at 15 federal departments and agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The rule must also be followed in research funded by those agencies but done elsewhere, such as at universities and medical schools.
Under the proposed changes, the Common Rule would cover all research at institutions that get money from one of the 15 federal agencies, even studies paid for entirely by other sources, such as drug companies or private foundations. The effect would be to capture nearly all the biomedical experiments not already covered.
The rule would also require that a single “institutional review board” oversee a study that enrolls subjects at many hospitals and clinics (as is the case with most big clinical trials of drugs and procedures). Currently, each hospital’s board generally reviews the experimental protocol and makes suggestions — a process that researchers call burdensome and government overseers find confusing.
However, boards in foreign countries would still review proposals for research enrolling their own citizens because, according to an HHS document, “it might be difficult for an IRB in the U.S. to adequately evaluate local conditions in a foreign country that could play an important role on the ethical evaluation of the study.”
The proposal would also exempt from board review research that involves surveys and interviews that poses little or no risk to people — a change expected to be especially welcomed by social scientists. The revisions intend to make the consent forms that lay out a study’s risks and possible benefits clearer, shorter and more standardized.
Friday’s announcement acknowledges the revolution in computer information technology and in understanding the human genome that’ has marked the last 20 years of medical research.
A single Web site would be created where all “adverse events” from clinical studies would have to be reported. Today, notification of such problems is sent to various agencies on different schedules. Having a single database would not only be more efficient, it might increase the chance of catching rare and severe complications more quickly.
Volunteers in studies in which biological material, such as blood or tissue, is collected would be asked whether they agree to have the material used in future research. Today, archived blood can be studied long after collection as long as researchers strip it of information that identifies the donor. But the concept of “anonymity” has changed in an era of cheap and easy gene sequencing.
“This acknowledges that with today’s technology that biospecimens are inherently identifiable,” said Kathy Hudson, a deputy director at the NIH.
Asking permission to use their specimens — including their DNA — in future research “expresses a very high level of respect to those research participants,” she said.
With permission from Lise Oxenbøll Huggler, I’m sharing her very interesting memoir of her mother, Bodil Vibeke Jerslev Lund (April 30th 1919 – December 21st, 2004), a Danish organic
chemist and x-ray crystallographer.
On the 18th Century studies listserve, Lise mentioned her mother’s connection with Princeton University in the 1940s. That caught my eye because I live in Princeton and, among other things, work on New Jersey history of science and medicine. So I urged her to pass along the account with the Princeton University archivist and asked if I could make it available to the WHOM listserve.
Lise adds: “I sent my account to one of my mother’s former collegues, and he wrote back that he, so to speak, could hear my mother’s voice in the quotings.”
Enjoy!
Karen
cc: huggler@ruc.dk (Lise Huggler),
creager@Princeton.EDU (Angela Creager),
dlinke@princeton.edu (Daniel Linke),
spweldon@ou.edu (Stephen Weldon, Bibliographer
for the History of Science Society)
=========
6/6/2011
Hi Karen,
I hold the family archives and have been delving a bit, so here goes:
Mor (at some time I began to call her “mummy” – she simply hated that, so I stopped and therefore use the Danish equivalent), Bodil Vibeke Jerslev Lund (April 30th 1919 – December 21st, 2004) was the eldest child of Aage Jerslev, pharmacist in Fjerritslev, a small town in Northern Jutland, and Ella Jerslev (born Friis Sørensen), also educated as a pharmacist.
Mor herself graded as pharmacist in 1941. In 1942 she was appointed “amanuensis” (something like junior lecturer) at the organic chemistry department at The Danish School of Pharmacy, Copenhagen. However, due to WWII, the education of pharmacists was closed; instead the University of Copenhagen and other “academic” Schools in the Copenhagen area arranged series of lectures for people like her on hot topics in science. She attended some lectures on X-ray chrystallography – and was sold! This became her main area of scientific interest.
After the war she got a grant to study X-ray chrystallography at The University of Uppsala, Sweden, in 1946, and she stayed there for, I believe, about 1 year. (By the way, my parents were engaged shortly
before, and far (aka my father), Christian Oxenbøll Lund, engineer, in ca. 1947 went to Princeton to work, first as a trainee in Bells Laboratories and later at RCA.)
Mor was in 1948 awarded “H.C. Ørsteds rejselegat” (Ørsted founded the Pharmaceutical School), which made it possible for her to go to Oxford to do research under the auspices of Dorothy Hodgkin in
the autumn 1948. From England she went directly to Princeton. It was Dorothy Hodgkin who got her the invitation from the dean of Frick Chemical Laboratory, professor Hugh S. Taylor.
Here comes a bit of human/cultural interest: My parents had planned to get married immediately upon mor’s arrival at December 27th, 1948. Far seems to be have ignorant that a Wassermann test (for syphilis) was required. On the way to their marriage at the Danish Church in New York, they got a hitch hike, and mor was about to blurt out about all the fun about their retarded wedding, but far hushed her since it was prohibited by law to live together prior to marriage…
Well, in the middle of January 1949, she started to work at Princeton. January 31st she wrote a letter to the leader of the organic chemical laboratory at The Pharmaceutical School in
Copenhagen, professor Hans Baggesgaard Rasmussen describing her immediate impressions. I quote two passages, in my translation:
“Well, now I’m established at the University in Princeton, which seems to be very exceptional. Beforehand, I did know that there are only male students, but I did not know that there are absolutely no post graduate girls nor assistants at Frick; anyway, there aren’t, and whatever may have moved the leader, prof. Hugh S. Taylor to let me in, I can’t find out, really. Still, here I am, and I am pleased to be there. It is rather crowded, I share laboratory with a couple of infrared people and Dr. White, an Englishman and X-ray chrystallographer. And am under orders from assoc. prof Turkevich, who especially works on infrared spectroscopy. On the other hand, this is a “genuine” chemical lab, in contradistinction to Oxford that was purely chrystallografic, so I am doing very well.
Right now there is not very much X-ray apparatus, but they gather together, and apparently my appearance has given the enterprise a push, in any case a Weissenberg <camera> will
arrive in some weeks. I believe that it is characteristic for the place that prof. Taylor didn’t batter an eyelid when he heard that it costs $1200, but that he showed interest when he
asked about the space it occupies. When he heard that its volume is very limited, he brightened up considerably.”
From a letter to Dorothy Hodgkin, dated March 18th 1948, I quote:
“I started at the lab. here in Princeton in the middle of january, and at the first glance I was a little bit disappointed. The only X-ray camera, they have got, is a 114 mm diameter oscillation
camera, and though here is one X-ray tube, here is no further equipment, not even strips. However, they have, as you told me, plans to set up a better outfit, and it seems, that a Weissenberg
was ordered (Supper) soon after I came, and it is expected to arrive any day. Robertson-strips are also on their way, so in a few weeks working conditions will be quite nice.”
The strips mentioned were paper strips used to do Fourier syntheses, indispensable at that time, before computers took over, to work out molecule structures from X-ray photographies.
Well, the arrival of the Weissenberg camera was retarded due to a railway strike. Instead, she got opportunities to go to other universities in the US which had the facilities needed.
My parents went back to Denmark before July 1st 1948.
Mor went back to work at the Pharmaceutical School. In 1958 she defended the dr.phil. degree at the University of Copenhagen on the structure of oximes. Later that year, she was elected as professor in
organic chemistry.
Kindly regards,
Lise
–
Karen Reeds, PhD, FLS karen.reeds@verizon.net
Visiting Scholar, History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania
Princeton Research Forum http://www.princetonresearchforum.org/
Karen Reeds, A State of Health: New Jersey’s
Medical Heritage (Rutgers UP, 2001)
