Expanding perspectives: A social inequities lens on intimate partner violence, reproductive justice, and infant mental health

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) poses a threat to the attainment of reproductive justice. Women who experience IPV are limited in their ability to parent their children in a secure and nurturing environment, which can have negative effects on the mother and child immediately and long‐term, potentially distressing reproductive well‐being across generations. Societal inequities faced by women, particularly women of color, within education, economic, and legal systems are associated with risk factors for IPV. This article will use national‐ and state‐level data with case examples and the lens of reproductive justice to consider the impact of and potential solutions to historical and institutional inequities related to IPV.

Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal focused coparenting consultation for unmarried black fathers and mothers: One‐year infant and family outcomes

“…Further, race‐related differences in women's use of IPV behaviors are traceable to numerous factors that disproportionately challenge Black individuals (Caetano et al., 2005; Hampton et al., 2003). These include educational disparities, economic privation, mental health, substance misuse (Dowd et al., 2005; Golden et al., 2013) – and racism mediating the impact of societal and individual‐level risk factors for IPV (Al'Uqdah et al., 2016; Grady et al., 2019; Hampton et al., 2003). Recent scholarship has shed additional light on specific roles of oppression in maintaining racial IPV disparities (Kelly et al., 2020).…”

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intimate Partner Violence Advocates and Agencies

“…Further, few studies have considered the experiences of culturally-specific IPV agencies, defined as organizations centering the cultural experiences of their clients, which serve as important providers for IPV survivors from communities which have been marginalized (e.g., LGBTQIA+-identifying survivors, immigrants, racial and ethnic minority-identifying survivors; Serrata et al, 2017 ). Culturally-specific agencies are critical as survivors from communities which have been marginalized may face unique challenges and be cut off from help-seeking resources, disparities driven by structural inequities within the education, healthcare, economic, and legal systems (Bermea et al, 2019 ; Grady et al, 2019 ; Ragavan et al, 2020c ; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005 ; Stockman et al, 2015 ). The work of culturally-specific agencies is particularly important to examine during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disproportionately impacted Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native, and LGBTQIA+ identifying peoples, as well as those living in poverty (Azar et al, 2020 ; Macias Gil et al, 2020 ; Phillips et al, 2020 ; Tai et al, 2021 ).…”

Special Issue on Infant Mental Health and Reproductive Health and Justice

“…As reproductive justice advocates have noted, we cannot understand experiences of reproduction and maternity separate from our understanding of the social context in which these occur. Grady, Hinshaw‐Fuselier, and Friar (this issue) explore intergenerational transmission of trauma and the need to account for not only present circumstances and personal trauma histories but also historical trauma in “Expanding Perspectives: A Social Inequities Lens on Intimate Partner Violence, Reproductive Justice, and Infant Mental Health.” In “Look to Norway: Serving New Families and Infants in a Multiethnic Population,” Leirbakk, Magnus, Torper, and Zeanah (this issue) discuss how home visits “created a more equal power balance between the mothers and their PHNs, as compared to office visits” (p. 15). For providers, engaging with families in community settings can provide a deeper sense of families’ lived realities.…”

“…In supporting parents and families, the articles “Reproductive Justice and Support for Young Fathers” by Dukes, Palm, and Carlson (this issue); “Teenage Childbearing, Reproductive Justice, and Infant Mental Health” by Hans and White (this issue); and “Long‐Acting Reversible Contraception: A Route to Reproductive Justice or Injustice” by Kaitz, Mankuta, and Mankuta (this issue), along with articles by Grady et al. (this issue) and Schlafer and Carlson (this issue), describe how social contexts and policy impact services. They emphasize the need to center the experiences and wisdom of communities left out of social service and public health decisions that directly affect them.…”