The Cultural Dimension: How We Understand Preterm Birth

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

This chapter examines the cultural view, or set of shared understandings, held in the U.S. about preterm birth. Childbirth is understood to be a medical phenomenon; medical authorities guide the interpretation of the childbirth experience, and provide interventions that are supposed to guarantee a successful birth. The medicalized view of childbirth is situated in a broader framework of social reproduction, which is the way a society determines how it will continue across generations. Within the framework of social reproduction in the U.S., fetuses are believed to have an independent existence beginning early in pregnancy, and mothers are thought to be responsible for the outcomes of their pregnancies and for the progress of their children through adulthood. Beliefs about preterm birth in the U.S. reinforce the medicalization framework, and also shift the responsibility from medical authorities to mothers if pregnancy outcomes are not successful. Understandings of preterm birth also support the belief that fetuses exist independent of their mothers, while the compassion generated in the context of care of preterm newborns echoes the cultural premise that such emotions are appropriate for the care of children, while they are inappropriate in other social spheres. There are many similarities between the U.S. and other countries in the cultural views of medicalized childbirth and social reproduction, but there is also more stigmatization of reproduction among specific subgroups in the U.S., so that successful reproduction is thought to be more of an individual than a society-wide concern.

Keywords

Medicalization of pregnancy High-risk pregnancy definition Social reproduction Stratified reproduction Gender roles Patriarchy Abortion history Abortion international comparisons Preterm birth prevention Fetal rights Neonatal intensive care organization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. ACOG. (2014). Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 123(3), 693–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendell, T. (2000). Conceiving and investigating motherhood: the decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(4), 1192–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong, E. M. (2003). Conceiving risk, bearing responsibility. fetal alcohol syndrome and the diagnosis of a moral disorder. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banta, D., & Thacker, S. B. (1979). Policies toward medical technology: the case of electronic fetal monitoring. American Journal of Public Health, 69(9), 931–935.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1996). Life as a planning project (M. Chalmers, Trans.). In S. Lash, B. Szerozynski & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity. towards a new ecology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bledsoe, C. (1990). The politics of children: Fosterage and the social management of fertility among the Mende of Sierra Leone. In W. P. Handwerker (Ed.), Births and power. Social change and the politics of reproduction (pp. 81–100). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, H. (Ed.). (2009). The hero’s journey. New York: Bloom’s Literary Criticism.Google Scholar
  8. Bridges, K. M. (2011). Reproducing race: An ethnography of pregnancy as a site of racialization. Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Browner, C. H., & Press, N. (1997). The production of authoritative knowledge in American prenatal care. In R. Davis Floyd & C. F. Sargent (Eds.), Childbirth and authoritative knowledge. Cross cultural perspectives (pp. 113–131). Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brubaker, S. J. (2007). Denied, embracing, and resisting medicalization. African American teen mothers’ perceptions of formal pregnancy and childbirth care. Gender and Society, 21(4), 528–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brubaker, S. J., & Dillaway, H. E. (2009). Medicalization, natural childbirth and birthing experiences. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bumpass, L. L. (1990). What’s happening to the family? Interactions between demographic and institutional change. Demography, 27(4), 483–498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caitlin, A. J. (2005). Thinking outside the box. Prenatal care and the call for a prenatal advance directive. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing, 19(2), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell, J. (1972). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Casper, M. J. (1996). The making of the unborn patient: A social anatomy of fetal surgery. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Chuang, C. H., Green, M. J., Chase, G. A., Dyer, A.-M., Ural, S. H., & Weisman, C. S. (2008). Perceived risk of preterm and low-birthweight birth in the Central Pennsylvania Women’s health study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 199(1), 64.e61–64.Google Scholar
  18. Clarke, A. E., Mamo, L., Fishman, J. R., Shim, J. K., & Fosket, J. R. (2003). Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformation of health, illness and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 161–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, S. L., Miller, D. D., Belfort, M. A., Dildy, G. A., Frye, D. K., & Meyers, J. A. (2009). Neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with elective term delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 200(2), 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cone, T. E. (1985). History of the care and feeding of the premature infant. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Craven, C. (2005). Claiming respectable American motherhood: Homebirth mothers, medical officials, and the state. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 19(2), 194–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Curtis, G. B., & Schuler, J. (2004). Your pregnancy week by week (5th ed.). Cambridge, MA: DeCapo Press.Google Scholar
  23. Daniels, C. R. (1993). At women’s expense: State power and the politics of fetal rights. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (copyright held by the President and Friends of Harvard College).Google Scholar
  24. Davis Floyd, R. (1994). The tecnocratic body: American childbirth as cultural expression. Social Science and Medicine, 38(8), 1125–1140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis Floyd, R. (2003). Birth as an American rite of passage (2nd ed.). Berkely: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. De Vries, R. G. (1981). Birth and death: Social construction at the poles of existence. Social Forces, 59(4), 1074–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Vries, C. A., & De Vries, R. G. (2007). Childbirth education in the 21st century: An immodest proposal. The Journal of Perinatal Education, 16(4), 38–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Declercq, E., Sakala, C., Curry, M. P., Applebaum, S., & Herrlich, A. (2013). Listening to mothers III: Pregnancy and Childbirth. In Listening to mothers. New York: Childbirth Connection.Google Scholar
  29. Donnison, J. (1977). Midwives and medical men: A history of inter-professional rivalries and women’s rights. New York: Schoken.Google Scholar
  30. Douglas, A. (2002). The mother of all pregnancy books. New York: Hungry Minds.Google Scholar
  31. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. Doyle, J. (2011). March of dimes cuts ties with KV. Company’s rollback of price for prenatal drug to $690 a shot fails to appease nonprofit. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.Google Scholar
  33. Duden, B. (1993). Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Duden, B. (1999). The fetus on the ‘Farther Shore’: Toward a history of the unborn. In L. M. Morgan & M. W. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal subjects, feminist positions (pp. 13–25). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. (1973). Witches, midwives and nurses: A history of women healers. Old Westbury, NY: Feminist Press.Google Scholar
  36. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Flavin, J. (2009). Our bodies, our crimes: The policing of women’s reproduction in America (alternative criminology). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fordyce, L. (2009). Social and clinical risk assessment among pregnant haitian women in South Florida. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s Health, 54(6), 477–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fox, B., & Worts, D. (1999). Revisiting the critique of medicalized childbirth: A contribution to the sociology of birth. Gender and Society, 13(June), 326–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress. A cultural account of assisted conception. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fraser, N. (1994). After the family wage: Gender Equity and the welfare state. Political Theory, 22.Google Scholar
  42. Fraser, G. J. (1995). Modern bodies, modern minds: Midwifery and reproductive change in an African American community. In F. D. Ginsburg & R. Rapp (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp. 42–58). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fraser, G. J. (1998). African American midwifery in the south. Dialogues of birth, race and memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Fraser, N., & Gordon, L. (1994). A genealogy of dependency: Tracing a keyword of the U.S. welfare state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19(2), 309–336.Google Scholar
  45. Galvez, A. (2012). Failing to see the danger. Conceptions of pregnancy and care practices among mexican immigrant women in New York City. In L. Fordyce & A. Maraesa (Eds.), Risk, reproduction and narratives of experience (pp. 37–57). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W., & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gaskin, I. M. (2003). Ina May’s guide to childbirth. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  48. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ginsburg, F. D., & Rapp, R. (1991). The politics of reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 311–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ginsburg, F. D., & Rapp, R. (1995). Introduction: Conceiving the new world order. In F. D. Ginsburg & R. Rapp (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order. The Global politics of reproduction (pp. 1–17). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Glendon, M. (1987). Abortion and divorce in western law: American failures, European challenges. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press (copyright held by the President and Friends of Harvard College).Google Scholar
  52. Goldenberg, R. L., McClure, E. A., Battacharya, A., Groat, T. D., & Stahl, P. (2009). Womens perceptions regarding the safety of birth at various gestational ages. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 114(6), 1254–1258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Goodenough, W. (2003). In pursuit of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Grobman, W. A., Kavanaugh, K., Moro, T., DeRegnier, R.-A., & Savage, T. (2010). Providing advice to parents for women at acutely high risk of periviable delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 115(5), 904–909.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grytten, J., Monkerud, L., Shau, I., & Sorenson, R. (2014). Regionalization and local hospital closure in Norwegian maternity care—The effect on neonatal and infant mortality. Health Services Research, 49(4), 1184–1204.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Handwerker, L. (1994). Medical risk: Implicating poor pregnant women. Social Science and Medicine, 38(5), 665–675.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale.Google Scholar
  58. Hunt, L. M., & de Voogd, K. B. (2003). Autonomy, danger and choice: The moral imperative of an “at-risk” pregnancy for a group of low income Latinas in Texas. In L. Oaks & B. H. Harthorn (Eds.), Risk, culture and health inequity: Shifting perceptions of danger and blame (pp. 37–56). Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Hyatt, S. B. (1999). Poverty and the medicalisation of motherhood. In S. B. Hyatt & T. M. Pollard (Eds.), Sex, gender and health (pp. 94–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Isaacson, N. (1996). The “fetus-infant”: Changing classifications of “in utero” development in medical texts. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ivry, T. (2010). Embodying culture. Pregnancy in Japan and Israel. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Keirns, C. (2015). Watching the clock: A Mother’s hope for a natural birth in a cesarean culture. Health Affairs, 34(1), 178–182.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kelly, J. (2010) Helping ill children’s families heal too. The Washington Post Metro Section, B02.Google Scholar
  64. Kenan, R. (1996). The at-risk health status and technology: A diagnostic invitation and the ‘gift of knowing’. Social Science and Medicine, 42(11), 1545–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kitzinger, S. (2004). The complete book of pregnancy and childbirth (4th ed.). New York: Alfred A Knopf.Google Scholar
  66. Kleeman, A. (2015, 12/8/2015). The bed-rest hoax: The case against a venerable pregnancy treatment. Harper’s Magazine, 23–28Google Scholar
  67. Knight, K. (2014). Summa theologica, first part, question 118, article 1, reply to objection 4. Retrieved from www.newadvent.org/summa/1118.htm
  68. Kumara, A., Hessinia, L., & Mitchell, E. M. H. (2009). Conceptualising abortion stigma. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 99999, 1. doi: 10.1080/13691050902842741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ladd-Taylor, M. (1994). Mother-work: Women, child welfare and the state 1890–1930. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  70. Ladd-Taylor, M., & Umansky, L. (1998). Introduction. In M. Ladd-Taylor & L. Umansky (Eds.), “Bad” mothers: The politics of blame in twentieth-century America (pp. 1–28). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Lake, R., & Epstein, A. (2009). Your best birth, know all your options, discover the natural choices, and take back the birth experience. New York: Hatchett Book Group.Google Scholar
  72. Laslett, B., & Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 381–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Layne, L. L. (1999). “I remember the day i shopped for your layette”: Consumer goods, fetuses, and feminism in the context of pregnancy loss. In L. M. Morgan & M. W. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal subjects, feminist positions (pp. 251–278). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  74. Layne, L. L. (2003). Motherhood lost: A feminist account of pregnancy loss in America. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Layne, L. L. (2006). Pregnancy and infant loss support: A new, feminist, American, patient movement? Social Science and Medicine, 62, 602–613.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Linders, A. (1998). Abortion as a social problem: The construction of “opposite” solutions in Sweden and the United States. Social Problems, 45(4), 488–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Litt, J. S. (2000). Medicalized motherhood: Perspectives from the lives of African-american and Jewish women. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Lupton, D. (1996). Risk and the ontology of pregnant embodiment. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 59–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Manning, F. A. (1989). Reflections on future directions in perinatal medicine. Seminars in Perinatology, 13(4), 342–351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Markens, S., Browner, C. H., & Press, N. (1997). Feeding the fetus: On interrogating the notion of maternal-fetal conflict. Feminist Studies, 23(2), 351–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Marlow, N., & Gil, A. B. (2007). Establishing neonatal networks: the reality. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 92, F137–F142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Martin, E. (1987). The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  83. Martin, R. (2010). Danger seen in rushing a baby’s birth. St. Petersburg Times.Google Scholar
  84. Massett, H. A., Greenup, M., Ryan, C. E., Staples, D. A., Green, N. S., & Maibach, E. (2003). Public perceptions about prematurity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(2), 120–127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McCall, C., Grimes, D. A., & Lyerly, A. D. (2013). “Therapeutic” bed rest in pregnancy. Unethical and unsupported by data. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 121(6), 1305–1308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mercer, B., Goldenberg, R. L., Das, A., Moawad, A., Iams, J. D., Meis, P. J., & Roberts, J. (1997). The preterm prediction study: A clinical risk assessment system. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 174(6), 1885–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Merchant, C. (1983). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Rowe.Google Scholar
  88. Michie, H., & Cahn, N. R. (1997). Confinements: fertility and infertility in contemporary culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Mitchell, L. M. (2001). Baby’s first picture: Ultrasound and the politics of fetal subjects. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  90. Mitchell, L. M., & Georges, E. (1997). Cross-cultural cyborgs: Greek and Canadian women’s discourses on fetal ultrasound. Feminist Studies, 23(2), 373–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Modell, J. (1998). Rights to the children: Foster care and social reproduction in Hawai’i. In S. Franklin & H. Ragone (Eds.), Reproducing reproduction. kinship, power and technological innovation (pp. 156–172). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  92. Morgan, L. M. (1999). Materializing the fetal body, or what are those corpses doing in biology’s basement? In L. M. Morgan & M. W. Michaels (Eds.), Fetal subjects, feminist positions (pp. 43–60). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  93. Morton, C. H., & Hsu, C. (2007). Contemporary dilemmas in American childbirth education: Findings From a comparative ethnographic study. Journal of Perinatal Education, 16(4), 25–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Murkoff, H., & Mazel, S. (2008). What to expect when you’re expecting (4th ed.). New York: Workman Publishing.Google Scholar
  95. Namey, E. E., & Lyerly, A. D. (2010). The meaning of “control” for childbearing women in the US. Social Science and Medicine, 71(4), 769–776.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Nelkin, D. (2003). Forward: The social meanings of risk. In L. Oaks & B. H. Harthorn (Eds.), Risk, culture and health inequality: Shifting perceptions of danger and blame (pp. vii–xiii). Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  97. O’Mara, P. (2003). Having a baby, naturally. New York: Atria Books.Google Scholar
  98. O’Neil, J., & Kaufert, P. A. (1990). The politics of obstetric care: The inuit experience. In W. P. Handwerker (Ed.), Births and power: Social change and the politics of reproduction (pp. 53–68). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  99. Oaks, L. (2001). Smoking and pregnancy: The politics of fetal protection. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Oaks, L., & Harthorn, B. H. (2003). Introduction: Health and the social and cultural construction of risk. In L. Oaks & B. H. Harthorn (Eds.), Risk, culture and health inequality: Shifting perceptions of danger and blame (pp. 3–11). Westport CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  101. Orfali, K. (2004). Parental role in medical decision-making: fact or fiction? A comparative study of ethical dilemmas in French and American neonatal intensive care units. Social Science and Medicine, 58(10), 2009–2022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Orloff, A. (1996). Gender in the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Ortner, S.B. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26(1), 126–166.Google Scholar
  104. Parrott, R., & Condit, C. M. (1996). Introduction. In R. Parrott & C. M. Condit (Eds.), Evaluating women’s health messages. A resource book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  105. Pasternak, B., Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1997). Sex, gender and kinship. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  106. Petchesky, R. P. (1987). Foetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. In M. Stanworth (Ed.), Reproductive technologies. Gender, motherhood and medicine (pp. 57–80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  107. Petchesky, R. P. (1990). Abortion and woman’s choice. The state, sexuality and reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Phillips, A., & Taylor, B. (2009). On kindness. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.Google Scholar
  109. Pollitt, K. (1998). ‘Fetal rights’, a new assault on feminism. In M. Ladd-Taylor & L. Umansky (Eds.), “Bad mothers” the politics of blame in twentieth century America (pp. 285–298). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Queniart, A. (1992). Risky business: Medical definitions of pregnancy. In D. H. Currie & V. Raol (Eds.), The anatomy of gender (pp. 161–174). Ottowa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Ramshaw, E. (2011) In Search of cuts, health officials question NICU overuse. The Texas Tribune.Google Scholar
  112. Reagan, L. J. (2003). From hazard to blessing to tragedy: Representations of miscarriage in twentieth-century America. Feminist Studies, 29(2), 356–378.Google Scholar
  113. Riley, L. (2006). You and your baby. Pregnancy. The ultimate week-by-week pregnancy guide. Des Moines: Meredith Books.Google Scholar
  114. Roberts, D. (1997). Killing the black body. Race, reproduction and the meaning of liberty. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  115. Robertson, A. F. (1991). Beyond the family. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  116. Robinson, S. (1984). A historical develpment of midwifery in the black community: 1600–1940. Journal of Nurse Midwifery, 29(4), 247–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Root, R., & Browner, C. H. (2001). Practices of the pregnant self: Compliance with and resistance to prenatal norms. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25(2), 195–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rothman, B. K. (2000). Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal society (2nd ed.). New York: W.W.Norton.Google Scholar
  119. Rothman, B. K. (2007a). Laboring then: The political history of maternity care in the United States. In W. Simonds, R. B. Katz & B. M. Norman (Eds.), Laboring on. Birth in transition in the United States (pp. 3–28). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  120. Rothman, B. K. (2007b). Laboring now: Current cultural constructions of pregnancy, birth and mothering. In W. Simonds, B. K. Rothman & B. M. Norman (Eds.), Laboring on: Birth in transition in the United States. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  121. Ruhl, L. (1999). Liberal governance and prenatal care: Risk and regulation in pregnancy. Economy and Society, 28(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Seale, C. (2003). Health and media: An overview. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25(6), 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Siegel, M. (2014). The rhetoric of pregnancy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  124. Smart, C. (1987). Law and the problem of paternity. In S. Michelle (Ed.), Reproductive technologies. Gender, motherhood and medicine (pp. 98–117). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  125. Stahl, K., & Hundley, V. (2003). Risk and risk assessment during pregnancy-do we scare because we care? Midwifery, 19, 298–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Starr, P. (1990). The social transformation of American Medicine.Google Scholar
  127. Stone, J., & Eddleman, K. (2008). The pregnancy Bible. Your Complete guide to pregnancy and early parenthood. Hamilton, Ontario: Firefly Books.Google Scholar
  128. Sultan, A. (2011). All worth it. Kandi Gregory’s days as a mother to twins born at 26 weeks are filled with doctor’s appointments, therapist visits, long-awaited milestones-and unimanginable joy. Mother’s day. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.Google Scholar
  129. Svrluga, B. (2011). Bowen plays through heartache, The Washington Post.Google Scholar
  130. Taylor, J. (1992). Image of contradition: Obstetrical ultrasound in American culture. In S. Franklin & H. Ragone (Eds.), Reproducing reproduction. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  131. The Boston Women’s Health Collective. (2008). Our Bodies, ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  132. Tsing, A. L. (1991). Monster stories: Women charged with perinatal endangerment. In F. D. Ginsburg & A. L. Tsing (Eds.), Uncertain terms: Negotiating gender in American culture (pp. 282–299). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  133. U.S. Senate, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Subcommittee on Children and Families. (2004). Examining causes, research and prevention of premature births. In 108th Congress, Second Session, 13 May, 2004. Document No. 94-317. Washington: GPOGoogle Scholar
  134. Vitez, M. (2011). Evolving techniques improve preemies’ chance of survival. The Philadelphia Inquirer.Google Scholar
  135. Watson, A. (1998). The digest of justinian, book I. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  136. Weber, M. (1996). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  137. Wolfson, H. (2011). 6 Brand-new babies and one proud papa. The Birmingham News.Google Scholar
  138. Zeitlin, J., Papiernik, E., & Breart, G. (2004). Regionalization of perinatal care in Europe. Seminars in Neonatology: SN, 9(2), 99–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations