By questioning methods of sex selection since their early development, and often discovering that they are unreliable, scientists have increased the creative and technological capacity of the field of reproductive health. The presentation of these methods to the public, via published books on timing methods and company websites for sperm sorting, increased interest in, and influence of, sex selection within the global society. The purpose of explaining the history, interest, development, and impact of various sex selection methods in the mid-twentieth century based on the information that is available on them today is to show couples which methods have failed and provide them with the knowledge necessary to make an informed decision on how they choose to go about utilizing methods of sex selection.

In 2010, the Catholic Church excommunicated Margaret McBride, a nun and ethics board member at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. McBride was excommunicated latae sententiae, or automatically, for approving a therapeutic abortion, which is an abortion that is required to save a pregnant woman’s life. McBride approved an abortion for a woman who was twenty-seven years old, eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child, and suffered from pulmonary hypertension, a life-threatening condition during pregnancy. Following McBride’s decision, St. Joseph’s lost its affiliation with the Catholic Church, which it had maintained since the late 1800s. Affiliation with the Catholic Church required that the hospital abide by Canon Law, which is the law of the Catholic Church. Under Canon Law, abortion is serious wrongdoing that could result in excommunication, as it did in the case of McBride. McBride’s excommunication illustrated the impact that affiliation of Catholicism with hospitals had on patients’ ability to receive comprehensive reproductive health care.

In 2020, Rebecca Flyckt and colleagues published “First Birth from a Deceased Donor Uterus in the United States: From Severe Graft Rejection to Successful Cesarean Delivery,” hereafter “First Birth from a Deceased Donor,” in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. In the article, Flyckt and colleagues explain that they performed one of the first uterus transplantations with a uterus from a deceased donor in the United States and detail how they did so successfully. All deceased donors in the study were considered brain-dead, not cardiac-dead. Uterus transplantation from a deceased donor is a surgical procedure in which a researcher transplants a healthy uterus from a brain-dead, deceased donor into a recipient with a diseased or absent uterus. Prior to 2020, researchers performed several uterus transplantations with live donors that resulted in live births, but there was only one recorded live birth from a deceased uterus donor. Flyckt and colleagues provide summary data about uterus transplantations from deceased donors and compare the efficacy of transplantations from live donors to those from deceased donors. “First Birth from a Deceased Donor” advances the techniques that can make uterus transplants from deceased donors successful, which allows people with uterine disorders the opportunity to become pregnant and have children.

In 2015, Mats Brännström and colleagues published “Livebirth after Uterus Transplantation” in the journal The Lancet. In “Livebirth after Uterus Transplantation,” Brännström and colleagues explain that they conducted one of the first uterus transplantations that resulted in a live birth, and they detail how they did so successfully. Uterus transplantations are a surgical procedure in which surgeons transplant a uterus from an eligible donor into a recipient with uterine infertility disorders, or UFIs, such as an absent or diseased uterus. Women with UFIs can neither conceive nor carry a pregnancy to term naturally, so uterus transplantations remain one of the only treatments available that offer them the possibility to become pregnant as of 2025. Prior to 2013, researchers worldwide had performed human uterus transplantations, but the procedures had not resulted in any reported live births. “Livebirth after Uterus Transplantation” shows that uterus transplantations can allow women with uterine infertility, which affects one in 500 women of reproductive age, the opportunity to experience pregnancy.

In 1960, the US-based pharmaceutical lab G.D. Searle and Company, or Searle, launched Enovid, one of the first oral birth control pills, following approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. Prior to Enovid, there were no oral birth control options for women. Women were reliant on male condoms, homemade concoctions, and other contraceptive methods as barriers to provide them with protection against pregnancy. Women’s rights activists like Margaret Sanger aimed to address that gap by supporting the creation a birth control pill. Sanger collaborated with researchers to formulate a hormonal pill that gives women the ability to protect themselves against getting pregnant. Although some steps in the path to creating the pill were unethical by today’s standards, they did result in the creation of an oral birth control pill. Enovid offered a new method of family planning that gave women the ability to control pregnancy and served as a precursor to additional birth control pills, which over 150 million women use worldwide annually.

In 2004, the Havasupai Tribe filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Board of Regents and several Arizona State University professors after discovering that the scientists had used blood samples from members of the tribe for research on type 2 diabetes in unrelated genetic studies. The study participants were not aware the researchers were using their samples in the study of highly taboo topics in Havasupai culture, such as schizophrenia, ethnic migration, and population inbreeding. The Havasupai Tribe alleged that the collection of samples constituted a violation of informed consent, or an individual’s agreement to participate after receiving an accurate and comprehensive explanation of the intended usage of their genetic material. The lawsuit, Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona State University Board of Regents, reached a settlement in April 2010 that included monetary compensation from Arizona State University and the return of the samples to the Havasupai community. Although the case did not set an official legal precedent, it sparked discourse regarding informed consent and ethical research practices when conducting genetic research with Native American communities and other vulnerable populations.