2015 Association for Women in Psychology Conference

Forced sterilization of women of color, including women with disabilities, has been an ongoing—though seldomly discussed—practice within the United States from the late 1800s through the present day (Lawrence, 2014). As recently as September 2014 , Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill banning California prisons from forcibly sterilizing women (Bhattarcharjee, 2014). The forced sterilization of women with disabilities is part of a larger historical trend within the U.S. that has used social policies, such as institutionalization and termination of parental rights, to regulate the mothering of women with disabilities (Lightfoot & LaLiberte, 2010). Additionally, women with disabilities contend with norms of femininity including idealized motherhood (Malacrida, 2009). In such a sociocultural atmosphere that condones the forced sterilization of women with disabilities, how do women cope with the psychological repercussions of sterilization and how do institutions that have been responsible for violating the reproductive rights of women begin to repair damage they have caused? How does this history of oppression influence the maternal identity development (Meighan, 2006) and reproductive story development (Jaffe & Diamond, 2010) of women with disabilities? The purpose of this purposed structured discussion is to examine restorative practices such as community, restorative circles, conflict management, and shame management (Wachtel, 2013) that will bring healing to the community of women with disabilities given the history of forced sterilization (Cohen & Bohifield, 2012; Nicholson, 2014) and facilitate a more positive maternal identity development. Two of the three presenters are mothers with disabilities. Through case studies of women who have experienced forced sterilization and mothers with disabilities, participants will explore and discuss issues of sexuality, maternal identity development, and the development of the reproductive story in the context of health disparities, especially with regard to obstetric/gynecological health of women with disabilities. References Bhattarcharjee, R. (2014, September 26). California bill bans forced sterilization of female inmates. September 26, 2014. NBC Bay Area. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Gov--Jerry-Brown-Signs-bill-to-End-Forced-Prison-Sterilization--277229702.html Cohen, E. & Bonifield, J. (2012, March 15). California’s dark legacy of forced sterilizations. CNN Health. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-sterilizations/ Jaffe, J. & Diamond, M.O. (2010). Reproductive trauma: Psychotherapy with infertility and pregnancy loss clients. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lawrence, M. (2014). Reproductive rights and state institutions: The forced sterilization of minority women in the United States (Senior Thesis). Retrieved from: http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/theses/390 Lightfoot, E. & LaLiberte, T. (2010). The inclusion of disability as a condition for termination of parental rights. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 927-934. Malacrida, C. (2009). Performing motherhood in a disablist world: Dilemmas of motherhood, femininity, and disability. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(1), 99-117. Doi: 10.1080/09518390802581927 Meighan, M. (2006). Ramona T. Mercer: Maternal role attainment – becoming a mother. In A.M. Tomey & M.R. Alligood (Eds.), Nursing theorists and their work (pp. 605-622). St. Lous, MO: Mosby Elsevier. Nicholson, L. (2014, June 22). Confirmed: 39 women illegally sterilized in California prisons. Reuters. Retrieved from: http://rt.com/usa/167660-california-illegal-sterilization-women/ Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining restorative. International Institute of Restorative Practices. Retrieved from: http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/Defining-Restorative.pdf

This interactive lecture format presentation will provide education concerning the growing social problem of abuse within the disability community to persons with disabilities, health care providers, educators and advocates. Research shows a 26% to 90% range for adults with disabilities who have experienced some form of abuse in their lifetime (Hughes et al., 2011). Children with a disability are 1.68 times more likely to have experienced abuse or neglect than children without a disability (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). Although it may be assumed that health care providers would be the first line of defense in this epidemic, it has been found that only 15% of women with disabilities report being asked by a healthcare provider whether abuse was a concern and/or if they wanted education on how they could be safer (Curry et al., 2011). When healthcare providers are not the primary advocates for abuse victims it may fall to persons with disabilities, and other allies, to begin to make changes within the system to help decrease the number of people who experience abuse. Isolation and attitudinal barriers increase vulnerability for abuse. To eliminate these unacceptably high incidence rates we must first have an understanding of the types of abuse which occur, the barriers to reporting abuse and the unique factors which cause increased vulnerability to abuse within the disability community. When people with disabilities attempt to seek assistance, services are often inaccessible to those with varying disabilities, leaving these individuals to stay in abusive situations (Beck-Massey, 1999). Through education people can begin to work together to eliminate barriers to reporting and increase the likelihood that abuse is eradicated. The presentation will end with an open conversation concerning ways in which we can all work together to decrease the frequency of abuse within the disability community.

The challenges faced graduate students with disabilities in acculturating and succeeding in pursuit of advanced degrees has received little scholarly attention. However, the path to degree completion can be stalled or stymied for these graduate students due to a number of institutional hurdles. These may include alternative test administration that may increase exam time to unsustainable levels. Also, graduate students with disabilities may have different challenges in disclosing their disability to faculty members or undergraduate students with which they work. Moreover, support services available to graduate students may be more or less accessible than what was previously offered in their undergraduate institutions. Presenters both work in a disability services office at a public university. They will lead a structured discussion on experiences of group members with applying and matriculating to graduate programs for students with disabilities. Also, the discussion will focus on strategies to strengthen self-advocacy and identity development. Lastly, presenters will focus on methods to improve well-being and practice self-care for these students.