The Politics of Norplant: Feminism, Civil Rights, and Social Policy in the 1990s

My poster will show class actions lawsuits impact on Norplant’s lifespan.  In 1990, the FDA approved Norplant, a form of long-term birth control, which was surgically inserted into a women’s arm and prevented pregnancies for up to five years. Doctors and feminists hailed it as the greatest advancement in birth control technology since the 1960s. Shortly after the FDA’s approval, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial that recommended providing women on welfare with monetary incentives to be put on Norplant. The editorial received national media attention because of its racist and eugenic connotations.  Despite public outcry, beginning in 1991, local, state, and federal governments began forcing poor and minority women to use Norplant. They believed these actions would prevent poor and minority women from becoming a financial burden on the government.  In the face of mounting abuses, feminists and women’s health organizations generated a campaign to get rid of Norplant and halt the coercive policies surrounding its implantation and removal.   Between 1995 and the early 2000s, over 200 lawsuits were filed against the drug’s distributor.  Lawyers used feminists’ arguments against the drug to structure their cases.  In 1999, Wyeth-Ayerst agreed to a $54 million settlement, giving the 36,000 plaintiffs $1,500 each.  My poster will show the geographical locations of the lawsuits and include statistics categorizing the races of the female plaintiffs to prove that while the government’s coercion of poor women were feminists’ concerns, the plaintiffs in these cases were mostly middle class women who voluntarily chose to use Norplant.