How Men Entrap Good Women in New York City

Abstract

Reproductive coercion (the deliberate interference with a partner's contraceptive use, pregnancy decisions, and reproductive autonomy) constitutes a distinct and durable form of violence against women that remains poorly recognized by the legal, healthcare, and public-safety institutions responsible for women's protection in New York City. This article synthesizes peer-reviewed epidemiological research, national surveillance data, New York State legislative records, and advocacy-sector reporting to characterize four core mechanisms of reproductive coercion: birth control sabotage, stealthing (nonconsensual condom removal), pregnancy pressure and coercion, and control of pregnancy outcomes. Drawing on the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), an estimated 8.4% of U.S. women report lifetime reproductive coercion (Basile et al., 2019); clinic-based samples run substantially higher, with 16% of 641 women at a large urban obstetrics-and-gynecology clinic reporting reproductive coercion currently or in the past (Clark et al., 2014), and stealthing victimization estimates spanning approximately 12% to 32% of women (Latimer et al., 2018). These harms are not randomly distributed: NISVS analysis found non-Hispanic Black women reported 14.8% lifetime reproductive coercion versus 7.0% for non-Hispanic White women (Basile et al., 2019), and NYC's own data show Black residents disproportionately represented among intimate partner violence victims (ENDGBV, 2021). Grounded in feminist criminology, Evan Stark's coercive control theory, and Smith and Freyd's institutional betrayal theory, the analysis argues that pregnancy functions as a uniquely enduring instrument of entrapment (creating permanent legal, biological, and economic ties) and that the failure of New York institutions to recognize, screen for, and legislate against reproductive coercion constitutes a form of institutional betrayal that compounds harm. New York has not enacted a civil stealthing statute despite the State Senate passing bill S4322 on April 2, 2025, while the Assembly companion A1711 stalled in committee. The article closes with fourteen numbered recommendations for legislative, healthcare, safety, educational, and research reform, centering women's safety throughout.

Keywords: reproductive coercion, coercive control, stealthing, intimate partner violence, institutional betrayal, feminist criminology, reproductive autonomy, New York City

Section 1: Introduction

This article examines reproductive coercion as a distinct threat to women’s safety and reproductive autonomy in New York City. A clear understanding of that problem begins with defining reproductive coercion and the behaviors it encompasses.

1.1 Defining Reproductive Coercion

Reproductive coercion refers to a constellation of behaviors intended to control a partner's reproductive decision-making, undermining bodily autonomy in the service of power and control. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), in Committee Opinion No. 554, defines reproductive and sexual coercion as behavior intended to maintain power and control in a relationship related to reproductive health by someone who is, was, or wishes to be involved in an intimate or dating relationship with an adult or adolescent, including explicit attempts to impregnate a partner against her will, control outcomes of a pregnancy, coerce a partner to have unprotected sex, and interfere with contraceptive methods (ACOG, 2013).

The term was first formally introduced by Elizabeth Miller and colleagues in 2010 to describe the link between partner violence and unintended pregnancy (Miller et al., 2010). The literature typically identifies four principal mechanisms. First, birth control sabotage involves active interference with contraception (destroying or hiding pills, damaging or removing condoms, or removing contraceptive devices) to promote pregnancy. Second, stealthing, or nonconsensual condom removal, transforms consented, condom-protected sex into unprotected sex without the partner's knowledge or agreement (Brodsky, 2017). Third, pregnancy pressure and coercion encompass threats, intimidation, and manipulation intended to compel pregnancy against a partner's wishes. Fourth, control of pregnancy outcomes involves pressuring or forcing a partner to continue or terminate a pregnancy against her own decision.

1.2 The Underreporting and Prevalence Crisis

Reproductive coercion is both common and profoundly underrecognized. National surveillance places lifetime prevalence at 8.4% of U.S. women (Basile et al., 2019), while clinic-based studies (which capture higher-risk populations presenting for family planning and obstetric care) report substantially higher rates, generally ranging from approximately 5% to over 30% depending on the population and measurement instrument. In a study of 641 women completing surveys at a large urban obstetrics-and-gynecology clinic, 16% reported reproductive coercion currently or in the past, and among those women 32% reported that intimate partner violence occurred in the same relationship (Clark et al., 2014). A Delaware Title X clinic sample found lifetime prevalence of 30.1%. This variance reflects genuine differences across populations as well as measurement inconsistency, and figures should be understood as ranges rather than precise point estimates.

Underreporting is driven by several factors: many women do not recognize these behaviors as abuse; the acts are frequently normalized within relationships and hookup culture; and few healthcare providers screen for reproductive coercion. As a result, prevalence figures almost certainly understate the true scope of the problem.

1.3 Overview of the Article

This article proceeds in ten sections. Following this introduction, Section 2 reviews foundational research and the theoretical frameworks anchoring the analysis. Section 3 describes data sources, the analytical framework, and limitations. Section 4 presents findings on the four core mechanisms of reproductive coercion, structured as mechanism and prevalence, mechanism description, institutional enablers, impact on victims, and case illustration. Section 5 offers a quantitative analysis of prevalence trends and disparities. Section 6 addresses gendered and intersectional dimensions. Section 7 examines drivers of underreporting. Section 8 discusses systemic mechanisms and theoretical implications. Section 9 presents numbered recommendations for reform. Section 10 concludes. Throughout, women's safety is the central objective.

Section 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Frameworks

2.1 Foundational Research

The empirical study of reproductive coercion begins with Miller et al. (2010), whose research in family planning clinics connected male reproductive control behaviors to intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Miller and colleagues subsequently developed and tested clinical interventions, most notably the intervention later formalized as ARCHES, Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings (Miller et al., 2011). The first nationally representative prevalence estimates came from Basile et al. (2019), who analyzed NISVS data (2010–2012) and documented both national lifetime prevalence (8.4% of women) and significant racial and ethnic disparities. Grace and Anderson (2018) provided a systematic review consolidating definitions, measurement, and correlates.

A distinct literature emerged around stealthing following Alexandra Brodsky's 2017 article "'Rape-Adjacent': Imagining Legal Responses to Nonconsensual Condom Removal," published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, which drew on interviews with survivors and argued for a new tort remedy (Brodsky, 2017). Empirical prevalence work followed, most prominently Latimer et al. (2018), a cross-sectional survey at a Melbourne sexual health clinic.

2.2 Coercive Control Theory

Evan Stark's Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (2007) reframed domestic abuse away from an "injury model" focused on discrete violent incidents toward a pattern of domination that erodes a victim's autonomy and space for action. Stark characterizes coercive control as a "liberty crime", one that destroys structural autonomy through isolation, intimidation, surveillance, and micromanagement, often without severe physical violence. Reproductive coercion fits squarely within this framework: controlling a partner's fertility is a mechanism of entrapment, and pregnancy can bind a victim to an abuser in ways that few other tactics can match.

2.3 Institutional Betrayal Theory

Smith and Freyd (2014) introduced the concept of institutional betrayal to describe wrongdoings perpetrated by institutions upon individuals who depend on them, including failures to prevent or respond supportively to interpersonal harm. Building on betrayal trauma theory, they demonstrated that institutional betrayal exacerbates the trauma of sexual victimization. Applied to reproductive coercion, the framework illuminates how healthcare systems that fail to screen, and legal systems that fail to recognize these harms, inflict a secondary injury on survivors. Freyd's corresponding concept of "institutional courage" names the antidote: transparency, accountability, and proactive protection.

2.4 Feminist Criminology and Intersectionality

Feminist criminology situates violence against women within structures of patriarchal power. Hillary Potter's work on Black feminist criminology (Potter, 2006) and intersectional criminology (Potter, 2013) extends this analysis, insisting that race, gender, and class jointly shape both victimization and institutional response. Kimberlé Crenshaw's foundational articulation of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) demonstrated that women of color are frequently marginalized within both antiracist and feminist frameworks, and that violence against them is rendered less visible. These frameworks are essential to understanding why reproductive coercion falls disproportionately on Black, Latina, and immigrant women and why institutional responses have been inadequate.

Section 3: Methodology

3.1 Data Sources

This article synthesizes multiple categories of evidence: (1) peer-reviewed studies on reproductive coercion, stealthing, and dating-app-facilitated sexual violence; (2) national surveillance data, principally NISVS as analyzed by Basile et al. (2019); (3) clinical guidance, principally ACOG Committee Opinion No. 554 (2013); (4) New York City Mayor's Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence (ENDGBV) reports; (5) New York State legislative records for stealthing bills S4322 and A1711 and their predecessors; (6) legal analyses of stealthing statutes; and (7) advocacy organization reporting from bodies such as Safe Horizon and Sanctuary for Families.

3.2 Analytical Framework

The analysis categorizes reproductive coercion into four mechanisms (contraceptive sabotage, stealthing, pregnancy pressure and coercion, and control of pregnancy outcomes) consistent with the typology established by Miller et al. (2010) and ACOG (2013). For each, the article examines the mechanism, its institutional enablers, its impact on victims, and a documented case illustration, applying the coercive control, institutional betrayal, and intersectional lenses throughout.

3.3 Limitations

Three limitations warrant emphasis. First, reproductive coercion is systematically underreported, so all prevalence figures likely understate true incidence. Second, measurement varies substantially across studies, different instruments, populations, and recall periods produce divergent estimates, which is why figures are presented as ranges. Third, and critically for this article's focus, there is no NYC-specific prevalence data for reproductive coercion; the analysis relies on national data, out-of-jurisdiction studies (including Australian research), and NYC intimate partner violence data as proxies. This gap is itself a finding and motivates a research recommendation below.

Section 4: Findings

Core Mechanisms of Reproductive Coercion

4.1 Birth Control Sabotage

Mechanism and Prevalence. Birth control sabotage is estimated to affect approximately 15% of women over their lifetime (Miller et al., 2010), with rates elevated in clinic and intimate-partner-violence-affected populations. In a racially and ethnically diverse young-adult sample, 3.3% reported lifetime birth control sabotage specifically, a lower figure than the 10% reporting pregnancy coercion in the same sample, where the lifetime prevalence of any reproductive coercion was 11.4% (PettyJohn et al., 2022).

Mechanism Description. Sabotage encompasses hiding or destroying oral contraceptives, puncturing or removing condoms, removing vaginal rings or intrauterine devices, and refusing to withdraw when withdrawal was the agreed method. The unifying feature is active interference with a partner's chosen method to promote pregnancy against her will.

Institutional Enablers. Healthcare systems that do not counsel patients on covert, partner-independent contraception leave women without protective options. When providers do not screen for coercion, sabotage remains invisible. Pharmacy and clinic practices that require partner knowledge or that lack privacy protections further enable control.

Impact on Victims. Sabotage produces unintended pregnancy, loss of reproductive autonomy, and, where pregnancy results, long-term entanglement with an abuser. It is frequently a marker of broader coercive control and elevated danger.

Case Illustration. In a published qualitative study of race and reproductive coercion, survivors described sabotage in stark terms, with one recounting that her partner threw away her condoms, contraceptive foam, and an entire bag of emergency contraception (Nikolajski et al., 2015). Another described her partner secretly defeating condom use by pulling the condom off during sex on multiple occasions without her knowledge (Nikolajski et al., 2015).

4.2 Stealthing in Hookup and Dating-App Culture

Mechanism and Prevalence. Stealthing victimization estimates among women range widely, from approximately 12% in a U.S. study to 32% in the Melbourne sexual health clinic study by Latimer et al. (2018), with a commonly cited empirical range of 19–32% (Bonar et al., 2021; Latimer et al., 2018). Among emerging-adult men, approximately 6.1% admit to nonconsensual condom removal (Bonar et al., 2021).

Mechanism Description. Stealthing transforms consensual protected sex into nonconsensual unprotected sex. Brodsky (2017) documented online communities in which men trade techniques and justify the practice through what she described as an ideology of male supremacy. It exposes victims to unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and the psychological harm of a consent violation.

Institutional Enablers. The rise of dating apps has expanded the settings in which stealthing and related coercion occur, often between partners with little prior knowledge of one another. Dating platforms place the burden of safety on users rather than screening perpetrators. Legally, New York provides no explicit civil remedy: the state has repeatedly introduced but not enacted a stealthing statute.

Impact on Victims. Latimer et al. (2018) found that both women and men who had experienced stealthing were about three times less likely to consider it sexual assault than those who had not (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.22–0.4 for women; OR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21–0.45 for men who have sex with men), evidence of normalization that compounds harm and suppresses reporting. Survivors describe betrayal, violation, and, in Brodsky's account, their partners' wholesale disregard of their preferences and boundaries (Brodsky, 2017).

Case Illustration. In December 2024, Luke Ford, a 35-year-old from Stirling, was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh to a 21-year extended sentence with 16 years in custody after conviction on 19 charges of abuse against nine women, including six rapes, one of which involved stealthing, believed to be Scotland's first such conviction (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, 2024). The stealthing victim, whom Ford met on Tinder, had handed him a condom; he later revealed he had not used it and told her by text to obtain emergency contraception and, if pregnant, to terminate. She described the experience as a violation. The case illustrates the convergence of dating-app facilitation, stealthing, and broader coercive control.

4.3 Pregnancy Pressure and Coercion

Mechanism and Prevalence. Pregnancy coercion is the most frequently reported component of reproductive coercion in several samples; in a diverse young-adult sample, 10% reported lifetime pregnancy coercion (PettyJohn et al., 2022). Clinic samples report substantially higher rates.

Mechanism Description. Pregnancy coercion encompasses telling a partner not to use contraception, threats to leave or to harm, withholding resources, and unrelenting hostility aimed at compelling pregnancy (Miller et al., 2010). It operates through psychological domination rather than only physical force.

Institutional Enablers. Where healthcare providers do not screen and where legal definitions of abuse exclude reproductive control, pregnancy coercion is neither identified nor actionable. Economic dependence (amplified by lack of affordable childcare and housing) strengthens the coercive leverage of threats to withhold resources.

Impact on Victims. Beyond unintended pregnancy, pregnancy coercion is associated with elevated danger. Research links reproductive coercion to homicide risk, sexual violence, and religious abuse among women experiencing intimate partner violence (Bagwell-Gray et al., 2021).

Case Illustration. Qualitative research by Tarzia and McKenzie (2024) documented survivors' perceptions of perpetrator motivation, developing the theme "The illusion of a perfect father," in which men promoted pregnancy as part of a broader pattern of control and entrapment rather than genuine desire for parenthood. Survivor advocate Lynn Stroud has publicly described how, at age 20, a partner deliberately defeated their agreed contraception and then pressured her toward marriage while refusing support, an account she frames as an attempt to trap her through pregnancy (Stroud, advocacy testimony; noted as a self-narrated advocacy account rather than a peer-reviewed source).

4.4 Control of Pregnancy Outcomes

Mechanism and Prevalence. Control of pregnancy outcomes (pressuring a partner to either continue or terminate a pregnancy against her wishes) is less frequently measured in prevalence surveys but is well documented in qualitative research, particularly among immigrant and refugee populations.

Mechanism Description. This mechanism includes coercing abortion through threats or force, as well as preventing a wanted abortion by controlling access, finances, or movement. It represents the assertion that the woman's body is subordinate to the partner's will.

Institutional Enablers. Restrictions on reproductive healthcare access, language barriers, and immigration-related vulnerability all enable outcome control. For immigrant women, threats tied to visa status can be weaponized to compel compliance (Suha et al., 2022).

Impact on Victims. Outcome control produces forced pregnancy, forced abortion, and profound loss of bodily autonomy. Where a pregnancy is carried to term under coercion, the resulting child creates a durable legal and custodial tie to the abuser.

Case Illustration. In a qualitative study of immigrant and refugee women in Australia, thirteen women from seven countries described experiences fitting definitions of reproductive coercion, including violence during pregnancy with the intent of causing miscarriage, forced abortion, contraception sabotage, and forced pregnancy (Suha et al., 2022). Tarzia and McKenzie (2024) captured the same dynamic in the theme "My body was his."

Section 5: Quantitative Analysis

The quantitative picture of reproductive coercion must be read as a set of ranges rather than precise point estimates, given measurement variation and underreporting.

National and clinic prevalence. NISVS places lifetime reproductive coercion at 8.4% of U.S. women (Basile et al., 2019). Clinic-based samples range from roughly 5% to over 30%, with 16% of 641 women at a large urban OB/GYN clinic (Clark et al., 2014) and 30.1% in a Delaware Title X sample. A reasonable synthesis is that reproductive coercion affects fewer than 1 in 10 women nationally but 1 in 6 to nearly 1 in 3 women in higher-risk clinical populations.

Stealthing. Victimization estimates among women span approximately 12% (U.S.) to 32% (Latimer et al., 2018, Melbourne), with 19–32% cited as the empirical range. Latimer et al. found 32% of women (95% CI: 29%–35%) and 19% of men who have sex with men (95% CI: 17%–22%) reported ever experiencing stealthing, in a survey of 1,189 women and 1,063 men who have sex with men.

Racial disparities. Basile et al. (2019) found non-Hispanic Black women reported 14.8% lifetime reproductive coercion versus 7.0% for non-Hispanic White women, and Hispanic women 9.9%; non-Hispanic Black women and men had significantly higher lifetime prevalence of both reproductive coercion types than all other groups. (The reliably published general-sample figures are 14.8% versus 7.0%; where disparities among intimate-partner-violence victims specifically are cited elsewhere, they should be reported as documented rather than conflated with these general-sample values.)

Dating-app-facilitated sexual violence. Australian Institute of Criminology research (n = 9,987) found that three-quarters of dating-app users surveyed were subjected to online dating-app-facilitated sexual violence, and one-third were subjected to in-person dating-app-facilitated sexual violence perpetrated by someone met on a platform (Wolbers et al., 2022). A forensic study reviewing 3,413 sexual assault medical forensic examination charts identified 274 dating-app-facilitated assaults (8.02% of the total) and found them more violent, with strangulation in 32.4% of cases (compared with roughly 22% among other acquaintance assaults) and higher rates of assaultive and penetrative acts and anogenital and breast injuries (Valentine et al., 2022).

Figure 1: A bar chart would display lifetime reproductive coercion prevalence across national (NISVS) and clinic samples, showing the escalation from 8.4% nationally to 16–30% in clinical populations. Figure 2: A grouped bar chart would compare stealthing victimization ranges and dating-app-facilitated assault violence indicators (e.g., 32.4% versus roughly 22% strangulation).

Section 6: Gendered and Intersectional Dimensions

Reproductive coercion is markedly gender-asymmetric in both perpetration and impact. While men can be victims (particularly of stealthing among men who have sex with men) the overwhelming majority of reproductive coercion is perpetrated by men against women, and the biological consequence of pregnancy falls exclusively on women. Approximately 6.4% of men report perpetrating reproductive coercion, with far higher rates among men who also perpetrate sexual, physical, or psychological intimate partner violence.

Racial disparities. As noted, Black women experience roughly double the lifetime reproductive coercion rate of White women nationally (Basile et al., 2019). This pattern is mirrored in NYC's intimate partner violence data: ENDGBV analysis found Black residents disproportionately represented among IPV victims, comprising 22% of the city's population but 46% of IPV felony assault victims, and Black residents were 3.7 times more likely than White residents to report IPV felony rape (ENDGBV, 2021). These disparities reflect structural inequities rather than any group-level propensity.

Immigrant women. For NYC's large immigrant population, reproductive coercion intersects with immigration-related abuse. Perpetrators weaponize visa status through threats of deportation or family separation, and immigrant women face healthcare access barriers, language barriers, and fear of institutions that suppress help-seeking (Suha et al., 2022).

Socioeconomic entrapment. Economic dependence deepens vulnerability. Threats to withhold financial support, combined with the high cost of housing and childcare, make leaving a coercive relationship materially difficult, particularly once a pregnancy or child creates ongoing obligations.

Custody and long-term entanglement. Pregnancy and childbirth create a permanent tie to the abuser through shared children, extending contact through custody and visitation arrangements and providing an ongoing vector for coercive control long after a relationship ends. This durability distinguishes reproductive coercion from many other forms of abuse.

Section 7: Drivers of Underreporting

Multiple, reinforcing factors suppress the reporting of reproductive coercion.

Fear and normalization. Many survivors fear retaliation, and many behaviors are normalized within relationships and hookup culture. Latimer et al. (2018) demonstrated that those who had experienced stealthing were markedly less likely to name it as assault.

Lack of recognition. Survivors frequently report that they did not understand nonconsensual condom removal or contraceptive sabotage to be a form of assault until long after it occurred (BBC, 2021). Absent a name and a framework, survivors struggle to identify the harm as abuse.

Healthcare screening gaps. Providers rarely screen. Estimates suggest as few as 2% of health providers universally screen for intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion, and documented barriers include clinician discomfort, time constraints, and inadequate training (Stumbar et al., 2019; Tarzia & Hegarty, 2021).

Legal gaps. New York has not enacted a civil stealthing statute. The stealthing bill has been introduced repeatedly since 2017; in the 2025–2026 session, the State Senate passed S4322 on April 2, 2025, sponsored by Senator Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, but the Assembly companion A1711 stalled in the Assembly Judiciary Committee (New York State Senate, 2025). Only California (2021), Maine, and Washington (2024) have enacted civil stealthing statutes.

Distrust of institutions and immigration fears. Institutional betrayal and prior negative experiences deter reporting, and immigrant survivors face acute fears that engaging police or courts will jeopardize their status.

Section 8: Discussion

Systemic Mechanisms and Theoretical Implications

8.1 Institutional Betrayal in Healthcare and Legal Systems

The near-absence of screening and the absence of a civil remedy in New York exemplify institutional betrayal (Smith & Freyd, 2014). Systems on which survivors depend (clinics, courts, and legislatures) fail both to prevent and to respond to reproductive coercion, compounding the original harm. The remedy Freyd identifies, institutional courage, would require proactive screening, systematic data collection, and legal recognition.

8.2 Feminist Criminology and the Patriarchal Control of Reproduction

Reproductive coercion is a direct assertion of patriarchal control over women's bodies and fertility. Feminist and intersectional criminology (Potter, 2013; Crenshaw, 1991) explains both the gendered distribution of the harm and the institutional inattention: because the victims are disproportionately women, and disproportionately women of color and immigrants, the harm has been rendered less visible and less actionable.

8.3 Coercive Control and Entrapment

Pregnancy is a uniquely durable instrument of coercive control (Stark, 2007). Unlike isolation or surveillance, which end when a relationship ends, a coerced pregnancy creates a permanent legal and biological tie and sustained economic dependence. Tarzia and McKenzie (2024) found that pregnancy-promoting behavior in particular was associated with broader patterns of ongoing control and entrapment, distinguishing it from the entitlement and self-interest more often associated with pregnancy-preventing (e.g., forced abortion) behavior.

One Russian man calls it “Reproductive Russian Roulette” (the chance of creating a life), he hunts who he calls “good women” to be good candidates for his mission, to deliberately risk pregnancy without the women’s consent, hoping to entrap good women into forged long-term commitments for his unique immigration strategy of obtaining an American Green Card. This provides one example of how reproductive coercion occurs in New York City and how pregnancy may be exploited for purposes extending beyond reproduction itself.

The significance of such conduct lies not only in the risk of an unintended pregnancy but in the deliberate displacement of a woman’s reproductive decision-making. Decisions concerning contraception, pregnancy, and parenthood are fundamental exercises of bodily autonomy. When another person interferes with those decisions through deception, pressure, sabotage, or control, reproduction can become an instrument of power.

The consequences can extend far beyond the immediate encounter. A pregnancy produced through reproductive interference may affect a woman’s health, finances, family relationships, and future independence and can create continuing legal, financial, and interpersonal ties between her and the person responsible for the coercion. These potentially enduring consequences distinguish reproductive coercion as an important but still underrecognized dimension of violence against women.

Yet such conduct can be difficult to identify within conventional institutional frameworks. It may occur privately, leave no visible physical injury, and fall between familiar categories of domestic violence, sexual assault, and reproductive healthcare. As a result, victims may struggle to identify what has occurred as abuse, while the institutions responsible for their protection may fail to recognize or adequately respond to it.

8.4 Modern Dating Culture

Dating apps have expanded the settings in which reproductive coercion and sexual violence occur, and the evidence indicates that app-facilitated assaults are more violent (Valentine et al., 2022). Perpetrator-motivation research consistently identifies hostility toward women, entitlement, and a desire for domination (Davis, 2019). Tarzia and McKenzie (2024) developed four themes describing perceived perpetrator motivations: "His needs came first," "The illusion of a perfect father," "Creating a weapon of control," and "My body was his." Together these findings locate reproductive coercion at the intersection of individual perpetrator pathology and permissive institutional and technological environments.

Section 9: Recommendations for Systemic Reform

The following fourteen recommendations are grouped by domain. Benchmarks that would signal progress are noted where applicable.

9.1 Legislative Reforms

1. Enact New York's civil stealthing statute by passing both S4322 and its Assembly companion A1711, creating a private right of action for nonconsensual condom removal or tampering. Benchmark: Assembly Judiciary Committee advancement of A1711 in the next session, after its stall in 2025–2026.

2. Explicitly recognize reproductive coercion within New York's domestic violence statutes and as a basis for orders of protection.

3. Advance coercive control legislation that captures non-physical patterns of domination, following international models such as the United Kingdom's coercive-and-controlling-behavior offense.

9.2 Healthcare Reforms

4. Implement universal, trauma-informed reproductive coercion screening across NYC clinics, consistent with ACOG (2013), moving screening rates well above the estimated 2% baseline.

5. Adopt the ARCHES intervention model system-wide in family planning settings; in the original pilot, the intervention reduced the odds of pregnancy coercion by 71% among women who had experienced recent intimate partner violence, and made women significantly more likely to end an unhealthy or unsafe relationship (adjusted odds ratio = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.01–2.63) (Miller et al., 2011).

6. Expand partner-independent and covert contraception access, including long-acting reversible contraception offered at no cost, which is less detectable to partners.

7. Mandate provider training on reproductive coercion in medical and nursing curricula and continuing education (Stumbar et al., 2019).

9.3 Victim Safety Mechanisms

8. Integrate reproductive coercion into safety planning at NYC Family Justice Centers and partner agencies.

9. Support documentation practices that help survivors preserve evidence for civil or family court.

10. Publicize and fund NYC resources, including Safe Horizon and the Anti-Violence Project, ensuring multilingual, immigration-safe access.

9.4 Public Awareness and Education

11. Incorporate consent education that explicitly addresses stealthing and reproductive coercion into school and university curricula, building on New York's existing affirmative-consent framework under the 2015 "Enough is Enough" law.

12. Establish dating-app platform accountability standards, shifting the burden of safety away from users (Valentine et al., 2022; Wolbers et al., 2022).

9.5 Research and Data

13. Commission NYC-specific reproductive coercion surveillance through ENDGBV and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) to close the current data gap.

9.6 Advocacy Partnerships

14. Formalize partnerships among healthcare systems, legal-services providers such as Sanctuary for Families, and reproductive health providers such as Planned Parenthood of Greater New York to deliver coordinated, survivor-centered care.

Section 10: Conclusion

Reproductive coercion is a distinct, prevalent, and durable threat to women's safety in New York City. It operates through birth control sabotage, stealthing, pregnancy pressure, and control of pregnancy outcomes; it falls disproportionately on Black, Latina, and immigrant women; and it uses pregnancy as a uniquely permanent instrument of entrapment. The failure of healthcare and legal institutions to recognize, screen for, and legislate against these harms is not inevitable, it reflects changeable institutional choices. New York's Senate has repeatedly affirmed that stealthing warrants a legal remedy; the Assembly's inaction, the near-absence of clinical screening, and the lack of NYC-specific data are correctable. Naming reproductive coercion as the violence it is, and building the institutional courage to confront it, would materially advance the safety of women across the city.

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2013). Committee Opinion No. 554: Reproductive and sexual coercion. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 121(2 Pt 1), 411–415.

Bagwell-Gray, M. E., Thaller, J., Messing, J. T., & Durfee, A. (2021). Women's reproductive coercion and pregnancy avoidance: Associations with homicide risk, sexual violence, and religious abuse. Violence Against Women.

Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Liu, Y., Miller, E., & Kresnow, M. (2019). Prevalence of intimate partner reproductive coercion in the United States: Racial and ethnic differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), NP12324–NP12341.

Bonar, E. E., et al. (2021). Stealthing perpetration and victimization: Prevalence and correlates among emerging adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22).

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2021, June). Stealthing: "I didn't realise it's rape until it happened to me." BBC News (Newsbeat).

Brodsky, A. (2017). "Rape-adjacent": Imagining legal responses to nonconsensual condom removal. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 32(2), 183–210.

Clark, L. E., Allen, R. H., Goyal, V., Raker, C., & Gottlieb, A. S. (2014). Reproductive coercion and co-occurring intimate partner violence in obstetrics and gynecology patients. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 210(1), 42.e1–42.e8.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. (2024, December 18). Rapist prosecuted for stealthing rape in landmark trial.

Davis, K. C. (2019). "Stealthing": Factors associated with young men's nonconsensual condom removal. Health Psychology, 38(11), 997–1000.

Grace, K. T., & Anderson, J. C. (2018). Reproductive coercion: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(4), 371–390.

Latimer, R. L., Vodstrcil, L. A., Fairley, C. K., Cornelisse, V. J., Chow, E. P. F., et al. (2018). Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia. PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0209779.

Miller, E., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Levenson, R. R., Waldman, J., et al. (2010). Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy. Contraception, 81(4), 316–322.

Miller, E., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Levenson, R. R., Waldman, J., Schoenwald, P., & Silverman, J. G. (2011). A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception, 83(3), 274–280.

New York State Senate. (2025). Senate Bill S4322 and Assembly Bill A1711 (2025–2026 Regular Session).

Nikolajski, C., Miller, E., McCauley, H. L., et al. (2015). Race and reproductive coercion: A qualitative assessment. Women's Health Issues, 25(3).

NYC Mayor's Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence (ENDGBV). (2021). Domestic violence, race/ethnicity, and sex report.

PettyJohn, M. E., et al. (2022). Reproductive coercion and intimate partner violence victimization among a racially and ethnically diverse young adult sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Potter, H. (2006). An argument for Black feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(2), 106–124.

Potter, H. (2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology, 21(3), 305–318.

Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

Stumbar, S. E., Ward-Peterson, M., & Lupi, C. S. (2019). A pilot project exploring medical students' barriers to screening for intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion. PRiMER, 3, 23.

Suha, M., Murray, L., Warr, D., Chen, J., Block, K., Murdolo, A., et al. (2022). Reproductive coercion as a form of family violence against immigrant and refugee women in Australia. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0275809.

Tarzia, L., & Hegarty, K. (2021). A conceptual re-evaluation of reproductive coercion: Centring intent, fear and control. Reproductive Health, 18(1), 87.

Tarzia, L., & McKenzie, M. (2024). Reproductive coercion and abuse in intimate relationships: Women's perceptions of perpetrator motivations. PLOS ONE, 19(3), e0299069.

Valentine, J. L., Miles, L. W., Hamblin, K. M., & Gibbons, A. W. (2022). Dating app facilitated sexual assault: A retrospective review of sexual assault medical forensic examination charts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(9–10), 6298–6322.

Wolbers, H., Boxall, H., Long, C., & Gunnoo, A. (2022). Sexual harassment, aggression and violence victimisation among mobile dating app and website users in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology, Research Report No. 25.

Appendix A: Contact Resources for Survivors

Safe Horizon NYC 24-Hour Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-621-HOPE (800-621-4673); TTY 866-604-5350

Safe Horizon Rape & Sexual Assault Hotline: 212-227-3000

Safe Horizon Crime Victims Hotline: 866-689-HELP (866-689-4357)

NYC Family Justice Centers (one in each borough; walk in, or call 311; free, no appointment, all languages, regardless of immigration status): Bronx 718-508-1220; Brooklyn 718-250-5113; Manhattan 212-602-2800; Queens 718-575-4545; Staten Island 718-697-4300

NYS Domestic and Sexual Violence Hotline: 800-942-6906 (text 844-997-2121)

National Domestic Violence Hotline: 800-799-7233 (800-799-SAFE); TTY 800-787-3224; text START to 88788

NYC Anti-Violence Project (LGBTQ and HIV-affected survivors), 24-hour bilingual hotline: 212-714-1141

Sanctuary for Families: free legal and clinical services for survivors of domestic violence, sex trafficking, and gender-based violence across NYC (intake 212-349-6009)

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York: contraception including long-acting reversible methods (IUDs and implants), available at no cost to most patients

If you are in immediate danger, call 911.