![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
Chemical theories of human fertility and reproduction first became prevalent in both technical and mainstream media outlets beginning in the 1930s and 1940s, and they have remained prevalent to this day. In this essay, I analyze a selection of primary sources from this era that defined human fertility as a chemically induced process, rather than, for instance, a characteristic related to the conservation of nervous energy or to moral physiology. The resulting rhetorical history demonstrates the ways in which this chemical rhetoric was appropriated to re-envision sex, gender, and reproductive health in light of appeals to biochemical variability, artificiality, and technical expertise. Tracing these appeals sheds light on the rhetorical ecology that supported the widespread medicalization of (in)fertility and demonstrates how public vocabularies of science and medicine are constituted as they move across and interact with broader social discourses.
Notes
[1] “The Pentacle of Réjuvenescence,” British Medical Journal 1 (1889): 1416. Cited in John Henderson, “Ernest Starling and ‘Hormones’: An Historical Commentary,” Journal of Endocrinology 184 (2005): 5–6.
[2] Michael J. Aminoff, Séquard-Brown: An Improbable Genius Who Transformed Medicine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 5.
[3] Barbara Biesecker, “Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write Women into the History of Rhetoric,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 25, no. 2 (1992): 155.
[4] Infertility, in both historical and contemporary rhetoric, is repeatedly demarcated as the opposite of fertility, or—as the present analysis argues—one extreme in a range, with fertility occupying the other extreme. Thus, to conceptualize one is (and long has been) to conceptualize the other.
[5] Celeste M. Condit, Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 228; Peter Conrad, The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2007); Peter Conrad and Joseph W. Schneider, Deviance and Medicalization (St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby, 1980); see also Laura Mamo, Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2007), 11.
[6] Mary M. Lay, The Rhetoric of Midwifery: Gender, Knowledge, and Power (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000); Judith Walzer Leavitt, Brought to Bed: Childbearing in America, 1750–1950 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988); K. K. Barker, “A Ship upon a Stormy Sea: The Medicalization of Pregnancy,” Social Science and Medicine 47, no. 8 (1998): 1067–76.
[7] Margaret Marsh and Wanda Ronner, The Empty Cradle: Infertility in America from Colonial Times to the Present (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1996), 2.
[8] Mary M. Lay, Laura J. Gurak, Clare Gravon, and Cynthia Myntti, “The Rhetoric of Reproductive Technologies,” in Body Talk: Rhetoric, Technology, Reproduction, eds. Mary M. Lay, Laura J. Gurak, Clare Gravon, and Cynthia Myntti, 3–26 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000); Peter Conrad and Valerie Leiter, “Medicalization, Markets and Consumers,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45 (2004): 158–76; Arthur Greil, Julia McQuillan, and Kathleen Slauson-Blevins, “The Social Construction of Infertility,” Sociology Compass 5, no. 8 (2011): 736–46.
[9] Jenny Edbauer, “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situations to Rhetorical Ecologies,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35, no. 4 (2005): 6–9, 19. Cara A. Finnegan and Jiyeon Kang have enlisted the idea of rhetorical “circulation” toward similar ends: “‘Sighting’ the Public: Iconoclasm and Public Sphere Theory,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90, no. 4 (2004): 396.
[10] Edbauer, “Unframing Models of Public Distribution,” 13, 20.
[11] See, for example, Lawrence J. Prelli, A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989); Alan G. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990); Jeanne Fahnestock, Rhetorical Figures in Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); and Alan G. Gross and Joseph E. Harmon, Science from Sight to Insight: How Scientists Illustrate Meaning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).
[12] See, for example, Jeffrey A. Bennett, Banning Queer Blood: Rhetorics of Citizenship, Contagion, and Resistance (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2009); Lisa Keränen, Scientific Characters: Rhetoric, Politics, and Trust in Breast Cancer Research (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2010); John Lynch, What Are Stem Cells? Definitions at the Intersection of Science and Politics (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2011).
[13] The texts from which I draw for this analysis consist of key scientific books and articles that are consistently cited across historical accounts of the field of reproductive endocrinology; “popular” or “mainstream” books and articles authored by technical experts targeting lay publics; international newspaper coverage of infertility and reproductive endocrinology; and lay correspondence from and to endocrinologists concerning issues of infertility. Mainstream texts were selected for analysis either because they had been cited by other historical accounts of infertility or because they emerged from archival repositories as unique and/or as as-yet-underrepresented according to a range of factors such as location of publication.
[14] Conrad, The Medicalization of Society, 6; Edbauer, “Unframing Models of Public Distribution,” 20.
[15] Walter R. Fisher, “Narration as a Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument,” Communication Monographs 51, no. 1 (1984): 7–8.
[16] Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites, Crafting Equality: America’s Anglo-African Word (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), xiv; Maurice P. Crosland, Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 3.
[17] Lawrence Principe has recently argued that The Sceptical Chymist has long been misinterpreted and does not, in fact, dispute alchemical principles and practices but rather argues against the un-philosophical, commercial, and therefore vulgar use of alchemy. Principe, like Thomas Kuhn, argues that singular revolutionary texts and ideas are inherently mythical, even though they nonetheless serve a narrative purpose in historical accounts. “In Retrospect: The Sceptical Chymist,” Nature 469 (2011): 30–31; Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 55.
[18] Crosland, Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry, 3, 30–32, 51; Eric R. Scerri, The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), xvi.
[19] Archibald Clow and Nan L. Clow, The Chemical Revolution: A Contribution to Social Technology (New York: Routledge, 1992); Robert Siegfried and Betty Jo Dobbs, “Composition, a Neglected Aspect of the Chemical Revolution,” Annals of Science 24, no. 4 (1968): 281; William H. Brock, The Norton History of Chemistry (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1992), 76–77; Kenneth S. Zagacki and William Keith, “Rhetoric, Topoi, and Scientific Revolutions,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 25, no. 1 (1992): 65.
[20] Carolyn R. Miller, “Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science,” in A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy, eds. Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate, and Roger D. Cherry, 310–27 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), 316. Anita Kildebaek Nielsen and Sona Strbanova, Creating Networks in Chemistry: The Founding and Early History of Chemical Societies in Europe (London, UK: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008); Philippa A. Spoel, “The Science of Bodily Rhetoric in Gilbert Austin’s Chironomia,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28, no. 4 (1998): 7.
[21] Markia Blondel-Mégrelis, “Liebig or How to Popularize Chemistry,” HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 13, no. 1 (2007): 49–51.
[22] Leah Ceccarelli, Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 4, emphasis in original.
[23] Barbara Orland, “The Chemistry of Everyday Life: Popular Chemical Writing in Germany, 1780–1939,” in Communicating Chemistry: Textbooks and Their Audiences, 1789–1939, eds. Anders Lundgren and Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 327–66 (Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2000), 332–33.
[24] Orland, “The Chemistry of Everyday Life,” 327–66.
[25] Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, “In the Name of Science,” in Science in the Twentieth Century, eds. John Krige and Dominique Pestre (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 320–21; Ron Eglash, Jennifer L. Croissant, Giovanna Di Chiro, and Rayvon Fouché, eds., Appropriating Technology: Vernacular Science and Social Power (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).
[26] Katherine Pandora, “Knowledge Held in Common: Tales of Luther Burbank and Science in the American Vernacular,” Isis 92, no. 3 (2001): 491, 497. Social psychologist Wolfgang Wagner defines “vernacular science knowledge” as a “widely distributed form of popular understanding of science.” Wolfgang Wagner, “Vernacular Science Knowledge: Its Role in Everyday Life Communication,” Public Understanding of Science 16, no. 1 (2007): 11, 14.
[27] Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Isabelle Stengers, A History of Chemistry, trans. Debora van Dan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 168; Orland, “The Chemistry of Everyday Life,” 334; Robert Bud and Gerrylynn K. Roberts, Science versus Practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Dover, NH: Manchester University Press, 1984), 59–63.
[28] Ernest Homburg, Anthony S. Travis, and Harm G. Schröter, The Chemical Industry in Europe, 1850–1914: Industrial Growth, Pollution, and Professionalization (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998).
[29] Science, “The Popularization of Chemistry,” 70 (Sept. 27, 1929): 302.
[30] Leah Ceccarelli, On the Frontier of Science: An American Rhetoric of Exploration and Exploitation (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2013), 13.
[31] Joseph S. Fruton, “The Emergence of Biochemistry,” Science 192, no. 4237 (April 23, 1976): 327.
[32] Fruton, “The Emergence of Biochemistry,” 328–30.
[33] Marcel Florkin, Comprehensive Biochemistry, Vol. 30, A History of Biochemistry, eds. Marcel Florkin and Elmer H. Stotz (New York: Elsevier Publishing Company, 1972), 183–88.
[34] Juda Hirsch Quastel, “The Development of Biochemistry in the 20th Century,” Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry 69, no. 1 (1985): 19; Harmke Kamminga, “Biochemistry, Molecules and Macromolecules,” in Science in the Twentieth Century, eds. John Krige and Dominique Pestre, 525–46 (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997); Zagacki and Keith, “Rhetoric, Topoi, and Scientific Revolutions,” 66, emphasis in original.
[35] The term endocrinology was not used until the early twentieth century: Henderson, “Ernest Starling and ‘Hormones,’” 9.
[36] Ernest Henry Starling, The Croonian Lectures on the Chemical Correlations of the Body (London, UK: Women’s Printing Society, 1905); Henderson, “Ernest Starling and ‘Hormones,’” 5–9; Merriley Borell, “Organotherapy and the Emergence of Reproductive Endocrinology,” Journal of the History of Biology 18, no. 1 (1985): 9–13; Edward A. Schäfer, “The Hormones which are Contained in Animal Extracts: Their Physiological Effects,” Pharmaceutical Journal 79 (1907): 670–74. On the conceptual metaphor of body-as-communication-network, see Thomas J. Darwin, “Intelligent Cells and the Body as Conversation: The Democratic Rhetoric of Mindbody Medicine,” Argumentation and Advocacy 36, no. 1 (1999): 39–40. For a discussion of hormonal communication as “a transmission of affect,” see Teresa Brenna, The Transmission of Affect (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
[37] Borell, “Organotherapy and the Emergence of Reproductive Endocrinology,” 8–14; Celia Roberts, “‘A Matter of Embodied Fact’: Sex Hormones and the History of Bodies,” Feminist Theory 3 (2002): 11; Alan S. Parkes, “The Rise of Reproductive Endocrinology, 1926–1940,” in Sex, Science and Society: Addresses, Lectures and Articles by A. S. Parkes, 14–36 (London, UK: Oriel Press Limited, 1966).
[38] Sophie D. Aberle and George W. Corner, Twenty-Five Years of Sex Research: History of the National Research Council Committee for Research in Problems of Sex, 1922–1947 (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1953), 1–8; Borell, “Organotherapy and the Emergence of Reproductive Endocrinology,” 18–19; Sophia Kleegman, “Medical and Social Aspects of Birth Control,” The Journal—Lancet (November 15, 1935): 728.
[39] Aberle and Corner, Twenty-Five Years of Sex Research, 13–24; Borell, “Organotherapy and the Emergence of Reproductive Endocrinology,” 25; Nelly Oudhoorn, “On the Making of Sex Hormones: Research Materials and the Production of Knowledge,” Social Studies of Science 20 (1990): 5–33. It should be noted that the Committee for Research on Problems of Sex went to great lengths to separate its research from birth control advocacy and development, although its research endeavors were often directly applicable to those interested in establishing methods of hormonal contraception. Adele E. Clarke, Disciplining Reproduction: Modernity, American Life Sciences, and “The Problems of Sex” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 185–90.
[40] Bruno Latour rightly problematizes traditional understandings of scientific discoveries by arguing that they are dependent upon a number of different forces and connections—rather than upon the work of discrete actors. Bruno Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 16.
[41] Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979), 45, 58, 61; George W. Corner, “Our Knowledge of the Menstrual Cycle, 1910–1950,” The Lancet (April 12, 1951): 919–23; Oudshoorn, “On the Making of Sex Hormones,” 22.
[42] Clarke, Disciplining Reproduction, 122–28; Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 153.
[43] Oudshoorn, “On the Making of Sex Hormones,” 8.
[44] Quoted in Nelly Oudshoorn, Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones (New York: Routledge, 1994), 24; Walter Heape, Sex Antagonism (London, UK: Constable, 1913); J. D. Biggers, “Walter Heape, FRS: A Pioneer in Reproductive Biology,” Journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility 93, no. 1 (1991): 173–74; Clarke, Disciplining Reproduction, 125–26. See also Robert T. Frank, The Female Sex Hormone (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1929); Theodoor H. Van de Velde, Fertility and Sterility in Marriage: The Voluntary Promotion and Limitation, trans. F. W. Stella Browne (1929; New York: Medical Books, 1931).
[45] Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 183.
[46] Bernhard Zondek, “Mass Excretion of Oestrogenic Hormone in the Urine of the Stallion,” Nature 133 (February 10, 1934): 209–11; Vladimir Korenchevsky and Kathleen Hall, “Manifold Effects of Male and Female Sex Hormones in Both Sexes,” Nature 142 (December 3, 1938): 998; Nancy H. Callow and Robert K. Callow, “The Isolation of Androsterone and Transhydroandrosterone from the Urine of Normal Women,” Biochemical Journal 32 (1938): 1759–62.
[47] Darwin, “Intelligent Cells and the Body as Conversation,” 35, 40.
[48] Oudshoorn, Beyond the Natural Body, 36; Roberts, “‘A Matter of Embodied Fact,’” 14.
[49] This is not to say that scientists and clinicians were necessarily the first individuals to talk about reproduction in this way, but it is to say that they are the first ones that are currently on record as having so done.
[50] Marsh and Ronner, The Empty Cradle, 135.
[51] Elizabeth M. Ramsey, George Washington Corner, 1889–1981 (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1994), 71.
[52] George W. Corner, “The Relation between Menstruation and Ovulation in the Monkey,” Journal of the American Medical Association 89, no. 22 (November 26, 1927): 1838; Ramsey, George Washington Corner, 1889–1981, 64; Linda Gordon, The Moral Property of Women: A History of Birth Control Politics in America, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 32.
[53] Corner, “The Relation between Menstruation and Ovulation in the Monkey,” 1838–39. See also, Edgar Allen, “The Time of Ovulation in the Menstrual Cycle of the Monkey, Macacus Rhesus,” Experimental Biology and Medicine 23 (February 1926): 381–83; Edgar Allen, “Further Evidence Concerning the Menstrual Cycle of the Monkey, Macacus Rhesus,” The Anatomical Record 35 (March 1927): 1–2. Corner’s frequent, unapologetic references to the slaying of animals for human study and benefit echo the writings of pre-Boyle alchemists.
[54] Frank, The Female Sex Hormone, 290.
[55] Bernice L. Hausman, “Ovaries to Estrogen: Sex Hormones and Chemical Femininity in the 20th Century,” Journal of Medical Humanities 20, no. 3 (1999): 167.
[56] William L. Laurence, “The Week in Science: The Hormones,” New York Times (September 24, 1933): XX8.
[57] William L. Laurence, “Remedy Is Tested for Childlessness,” New York Times (October 26, 1934): 6; Laurence, “The Week in Science,” XX8.
[58] Edbauer, “Unframing Models of Public Distribution,” 9.
[59] George Washington Corner, “Ovarian Therapy: Speech before the New York State Medical Board,” May 15, 1934, MS Collection 11, Box E-O, George Washington Corner Papers, American Philosophical Society Archives, Philadelphia, PA; Associated Press, “Fifty Percent Cure is Reported in Childlessness: American College of Surgeons Told of Method of Ending Infertility,” Winnipeg Free Press (October 20, 1934): 1.
[60] Samuel Raynor Meaker, Human Sterility: Causation, Diagnosis, and Treatment; A Practical Manual of Clinical Procedure (Baltimore, MD: The Williams and Wilkins Company, 1934); William L. Laurence, “Cure of Sterility by Hormones Told,” New York Times (October 30, 1937) 11; Howard W. Blakeslee, “Male Sex Hormones: Now Produced Artificially,” The Lethbridge Herald (September 12, 1936): back page.
[61] Morris Fishbein, “The Family Doctor,” Chester Times (Pennsylvania) (December 27, 1939): 7.
[62] George W. Corner, The Hormones in Human Reproduction (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1942), ix; Ourselves Unborn: An Embryologist’s Essay on Man (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1941); “Extracts from Reviews,” October 1, 1944, Box 8, Folder 18, George Washington Corner Lectures, American Philosophical Society Archives, Philadelphia, PA, 8–9.
[63] “Extracts from Reviews,” 8–9.
[64] Corner, The Hormones in Human Reproduction, 54, 239.
[65] Meaker, Human Sterility, 3–7.
[66] For this reason, it was not until several decades later—and the development and distribution of the hormonal birth control pill—that recognition and discussion of “involuntary childlessness” began to circulate widely.
[67] Samuel Meaker, Charles H. Lawrence, and Samuel N. Vose, “Practical Details in the Management of Sterility, with Special Reference to Endocrine Factors,” New England Journal of Medicine 230 (July 22, 1944), 756–57; Marsh and Ronner, The Empty Cradle, 131.
[68] For an example of coverage on male sterility from the 1930s, see Readers Digest, “Test-Tube Babies” (February 1937): 18–20.
[69] Sophia J. Kleegman, “Recent Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Sterility,” The Medical Woman’s Journal 46 (January 1939), 3, 1, 9.
[70] Comment by Asta Wittner following Kleegman, “Recent Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Sterility,” 10.
[71] Newsweek, “‘Ghost’ Fathers: Children Provided for the Childless” (May 12, 1931): 16.
[72] Helena Huntington Smith, “Making It Possible to Have a Baby,” Parents’ Magazine (November 1934): 19, emphases added.
[73] George Washington Corner Papers, “Miscellaneous Inquiries from Laymen #2,” April 12, 1947, Box 16, Folder 60, American Philosophical Society Archives, Philadelphia, PA;
[74] George Washington Corner Papers, “Miscellaneous Inquiries from Laymen #3” September 1, 1955, Box 17, Folder 61, American Philosophical Society Archives, Philadelphia, PA, underlining in original; emphasis added.
[75] Nelly Oudshoorn, “Endocrinologists and the Conceptualization of Sex, 1920–1940,” Journal of the History of Biology 23, no. 2 (1990): 164.
[76] Corner, The Hormones in Human Reproduction, 96.
[77] Randi Hutter Epstein, “Emotions, Fertility, and the 1940s Woman,” Journal of Public Health Policy 24 (2003): 195–211; Monica M. E. Bonaccorso, Conceiving Kinship: Assisted Conception, Procreation and Family in Southern Europe (New York: Berghahn, 2009), 80.
[78] Maxine Davis, “Why Don’t We Have a Baby?” Pictorial Review (January 1939): 12.
[79] See, for instance, Thomas Dreier, Human Chemicals (New York: Backbone Society, 1910); We Human Chemicals: The Knack of Getting Along with Everybody (Scarsdale, NY: Updegraff Press, 1948); William Fairburn, Human Chemistry (New York: The Nation Valley Press, 1914). Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Elective Affinities (1809; New York: Penguin Classics, 1978).
[80] Jesper Sjöström, “The Discourse of Chemistry (and Beyond),” HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 13, no. 2 (2007): 83–84.
[81] Samuel R. Meaker, “Two Million American Homes Childless,” Hygeia 5 (November 1927): 546.
[82] Canada Press, “Collips Discovery is Boon to Women,” The Lethbridge Herald (May 28, 1932): 9.
[83] Corner, The Hormones in Human Reproduction, 242.
[84] Laurence, “The Week in Science,” XX8; Fishbein, “The Family Doctor, 7.
[85] Blakeslee, “Male Sex Hormones,” back page; Meaker, Human Sterility, 3–7.
[86] Corner, The Hormones in Human Reproduction, 113, 232, emphasis added.
[87] Free Hospital for Women, “Sixty-Seventh Annual Report,” 1940, MS collection 161, Box 1, Folder 41, John Rock Papers, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, 19.
[88] Marsh and Ronner, The Empty Cradle, 155–58; Gladys Denny Schultz, “Maybe You Can Have a Baby,” Better Homes and Gardens 18 (August 1940): 55, 59.
[89] Associated Press, “Fifty Percent Cure is Reported in Childlessness,” 1.
[90] Laurence, “Cure of Sterility by Hormones Told,” 11.
[91] Davis, “Why Don’t We Have a Baby,” 13.
[92] Kathryn Pauly Morgan, “Contested Bodies, Contested Knowledges: Women, Health, and the Politics of Medicalization,” in The Politics of Women’s Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy, ed. Susan Sherwin, 83–121 (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press); Catherine Kohler Riessman, “Women and Medicalization: A New Perspective,” Social Policy 14, no. 1 (1983): 3–18.
[93] John Rock, “Disorders in Menstruation and General Endocrine Aspects of Gynecology,” February 27, 1946, MS Collection 161, Box 19, Folder 30, John Rock Papers, Center for the History of Medicine, Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard University, 26–27.
[94] Elizabeth C. Britt, “Medical Insurance as Bio-Power: Law and the Normalization of (In)fertility,” in Body Talk: Rhetoric, Technology, Reproduction, eds. Mary M. Lay, Laura J. Gurak, Clare Gravon, and Cynthia Myntti (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), 213; Conceiving Normalcy: Rhetoric, Law, and the Double Binds of Infertility (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001), 58.
[95] Robert Green, Perfect Hormone Balance for Fertility: The Ultimate Guide to Getting Pregnant (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008); Alice D. Domar and Alice Lesch Kelly, Conquering Infertility: Dr. Alice Domar’s Mind/Body Guide to Enhancing Fertility and Coping with Infertility (New York: Penguin Books, 2004); Sandra L. Glahn and William R. Cutrer, The Infertility Companion: Hope and Help for Couples Facing Infertility (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 133.