Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41324893›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2025

Violent Legacies, New Threats: Protecting Black Motherhood in the Age of Artificial Womb Technology.

Carmen Haynes, Emma Tumilty

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Carmen HaynesDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555-1150, USA.
Emma TumiltyDepartment of Bioethics and Health Humanities, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555-1150, USA. emma.tumilty@mh.org.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4132-6467

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ectogestation, also known as Artificial Womb Technology (AWT), is a revolutionary reproductive technology that is poised to be one of the greatest innovations of our time. However, like most novel technologies, the potential for egregious harm cannot be ignored. In the United States, a country plagued by racist, heteronormative, capitalistic ideology, ectogestation presents a gateway for the severance of parental rights for Black and marginalized pregnant people. Drawing on key scholarship, we first retell the historical devaluation of Black motherhood through social and legal avenues and then connect these to the disproportionality crisis in the Child Welfare system in the United States. Against this background, we then describe contemporary cases of women who were victimized by the medico-legal system, had their bodily autonomy violated, and had their children removed from their custody. We use these cases to demonstrate that the conditions necessary for ectogestation to be used for fetal removal are already in place. Ectogestation thus, can be used to further the separation of families and the severance of parental rights in marginalized communities. We then offer recommendations for preemptive action to prohibit the misuse of ectogestation should it become available in the future.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanMothersReproductive Techniques, AssistedAdultChild CustodyChild WelfareFemaleHumansPersonal AutonomyPregnancyUnited StatesFeminist ethicsHealth policyHistoryLawRace and culture/ethnicityReproductive technologies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.