Sociologists have used boundary work theory to explore the strategies deployed by professionals to define and defend jurisdictional authority in the arenas of the public, the law and the workplace. My dissertation investigates how medical providers and public health professionals negotiate authority over abortion in Senegal. Although induced abortion is prohibited in Senegal, medical providers are permitted to treat complications of spontaneous and induced abortion, known as post-abortion care (PAC). Introduced to Senegal in the late 1990s, the national PAC program is primarily supported by American development aid. This study explores how medical providers manage complications of abortion and in particular, how they circumvent the involvement of criminal justice authorities when they encounter suspected cases of illegal abortion. I also study how boundary work is accomplished transnationally through the practice of PAC within the policy framework of American anti-abortion population assistance and the national prohibition on abortion. Findings are based on an institutional ethnography of Senegal's national PAC program conducted over a period of 19 months between 2009 and 2011. Data collection methods included in-depth interviews with 89 individuals, observation of PAC services, and review of PAC records at three hospitals. I also conducted an archival review of abortion and PAC in court records, the media, and public health literature. Findings show that medical providers and public health professionals perform discursive, technical and written boundary work strategies to maintain authority over PAC. Although these strategies have successfully integrated PAC into maternal health care, they have reinforced the stigma of abortion for women and health professionals. They have also reproduced gendered disparities in access to quality reproductive health care. PAC has been implemented in nearly 50 countries worldwide with varying legal restrictions on abortion. This study illustrates not only how medical professionals practice abortion care in such settings, but also how they navigate a precarious array of medical, legal and global health obligations.

This thesis investigates and interprets the origins and political discourses of the post World War II population movement in the United States. It argues that this movement, in part, was artificially created by members of the upper social class. Its most important representatives were the founder of the Population Council, John D. Rockefeller III and the owner of the Dixie Cup Company, Hugh Moore. Reasons for their interest in population control can be found in their concern for the national security of the United States which, they believed, was challenged by Communist expansion. Equally important was their attempt to perpetuate their upper-class privileges by ensuring the continuation of the existing political and social order in the United States. The ideology employed was "overpopulation." But while the image was overcrowding, it was not the industrialized, densely populated countries that were accused of being overpopulated but rather the poor, underdeveloped, often sparsely populated nations in the Third World. Or, similarly, the poor in the US were accused of being the main cause of all kinds of social ills. As poor countries had a higher population growth rate and as poor people tended to have more children than rich people, the poor were the main target of population control. This study, then, shows how pronatalism and antinatalism, the two variants of the population movement, capitalized on the political and social setting of their time in the United States. Although the antinatalists' apparent goal was population control in general, the poor were their main target while the wealthy population, as supporters of American values, did not have to be controlled in number. Similarly, the pronatalists seemingly desired to increase US birth rates, but mainly addressed the more privileged portions of the American population. The attitude toward the poor, and here explicitly toward the Third World, remained antinatalist. / Master of Arts

This thesis focuses on how well indicators of judicial ideology and institutional constraints predict whether a judge will vote to increase abortion access. I develop a model that evaluates a judge's decision in an abortion case in light of ideological factors measured at the time of a judge's nomination to the bench and legal and institutional constraints at the time a judge decides a case. I analyze abortion cases from all of the U.S. Federal District Courts from 1973-2004. Unlike previous studies, which demonstrate that the president and the home state senators are the best predictors of judicial ideology, I find that the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the judge's nomination is the only statistically significant ideological indicator. Also, contrary to conventional wisdom, Supreme Court precedent (a legal constraint) is also a significant predictor of judicial voting behavior in abortion cases.

“The Politics of Abortion Care in Ohio” is based on 16-months (November 2021- February 2023) of ethnographic fieldwork and 47 semi-structured interviews conducted before and after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision (2022) overturning the right to abortion in the United States (US). Currently, 14 states have banned abortion and three have bans prior to six weeks of pregnancy. I assert that the criminalization of abortion care is a form of structural violence that leads to direct harm experienced by pregnant people. My dissertation strives to make significant contributions to theories of state-based violence with particular attention to reproductive governance, the anthropology of policy, and the politics of care. First, I develop my concept of reproductive gerrymandering, which names a particular phenomenon wherein the political power of voters who support reproductive healthcare access is suppressed across political party lines. It gives the false impression that the majority of residents in states that predominately elect Republican representatives want government elimination of abortion and related services. I argue that reproductive gerrymandering is a form of bureaucratic violence used to promote anti-abortion agendas, which then causes everyday structural harm to pregnant people. Second, building upon theories of agnotology, or the study of ignorance, I argue that “heartbeat” bans—legislation that advances medical misinformation—manipulates biomedical terms to imbue a particular social meaning to embryos at a very early stage of pregnancy. I explore how biomedical practices, in this case the use of ultrasound technology to detect a “heartbeat,” furthers the cultural production of ignorance around pregnancy and sends a strategic message about the beginnings of life. Third, I demonstrate how constant fluctuations in abortion policy shape temporalities of care in clinic settings. Finally, I reveal three overlooked dimensions of reproductive governance to better understand political control of reproductive bodies: administrative and regulatory, the spread of ignorance, and the political reconfiguring of reproductive time. Ultimately, I argue for the conceptual value of attending to temporalities of structural violence, and specifically the pace with which political violence unfolds.