Abstract:Culture and class remain contested terrains in policy narratives about the right of the urban poor to access health and social services delivery systems under welfare reform. An urban bioethics agenda is needed to address these dilemmas that have arisen in the context of PRWORA and had an impact on access to health and social services in the urban environment.2;18 Such efforts, however, must address the intellectual framing of the urban poor, as well as the public policies that inscribe deterministic and stereotypical ideas about the poor alongside incomplete portraits of barriers to greater social and occupational mobility. The focus of social science researchers on the delineation of behavioral characteristics among an urban “underclass” in some instances further marginalizes and stigmatizes an already isolated urban poor. Even though Wilson, the Harvard sociologist who popularized the term “underclass” in his earlier research, has now largely disowned it, tales and stories a bound in the social policy and health literature. The media also commonly underscore perceptions that establish rumor as social science and promote stereotypes that the poor are lazy and unwilling to work. Wilson, who has analyzed contextual and neighborhood factors such as the migration of jobs to the suburbs, has also declared stance that is in opposition to those, such as New York University political science professor Lawrence Mead, who embrace a “culture of poverty” thesis and have set the tone for some welfare reform initiatives by arguing that behavior, and not joblessness, is the key, “My guess,” Mead stated after welfare reform was enacted in 1996, ”is that culture came first, and drove away the economy or the good jobs, rather than the other way around,” 21(p3)These statements continue to have dramatic impacts on the stigmas attached to public programs by promoting the idea that those in spatially concentrated radical and ethnic groups in urban areas are not members of the working class. Such perceptions have also contributed to a belief that those who participate in publicly subsidized social welfare and health insurance programs do not work. Whether one accepts that the denial of health care to citizens and noncitizens in contemporary America derives in large part from the promotion of images of the poor as pathological, states have moved steadily to institute a variety of policies under welfare reform that continue to prescribe narrower eligibility criteria for access to service delivery systems. This is occurring as the US Congress hesitates to restore excluded populations, and there are reports of questionable practices targeted at those who are eligible based on current legislation. On several occasions, for example, the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Health and Human Services has made inquiries (and issued sanctions) in cases for which state and local governments have discriminated against potential Medicaid and TANF applicants by ignoring regulations that stipulate that applications be delivered to applicants on request in a timely manner.3 While it is the explicit responsibility under welfare reform of the US Congress to pass legislation restoring eligibility to excluded populations, an urban bioethics agenda framed in a historical context has much to offer prevailing policy discourses. If, as political theorist Stone notes, a policy alternative is to be judged “by the company that it keeps,” then urban bioethicists can offer human rights paradigms and additional policy alternatives based an assessments of earlier historical experiences of stigmatization that embodied similar forms of evil.23

The first welfare case: money, sex, marriage, and white supremacy in Selma, 1966: a reproductive justice analysis

Protect and Control: Coverture's Logics Across Welfare Policy and Abortion Law

Setting Boundaries Between Crime and Rights

Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior : research perspectives

Deconstructing Racism and the White-Supremacist Practices Holding Social Welfare and Public Service Systems Hostage

Culture, class, and service delivery: the politics of welfare reform and an urban bioethics agenda

The laws that affect abortion in the United States and their impact on women's health

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision: Considerations for future violence research.

History Matters: Racialized Motherhoods and Neoliberalism

Wyatt v. Stickney: a historical perspective

Game Changers: A Critical Race Theory Analysis of the Economic, Social, and Political Factors Impacting Black Fatherhood and Family Formation

Reproductive and Social Policies, Sociopolitical Stress, and Implications for Maternal and Child Health Equity

Spotlight on Juvenile Justice: Intersecting the Child Welfare System

Resistance and Gendered Racism: Middle-Class Black Women's Experiences Navigating Reproductive Health Care Systems

State contexts and the criminalization of marital rape across the United States

Post- Dobbs Abortion Restrictions and the Families They Leave Behind

Abortion and health care

Inequities in Child Protective Services Contact Between Black and White Children

Normative Versus Felt Needs of Women in the Era of Welfare Reform

Abortion and the struggle to be good in the 1970s

Dobbs and the Civil Dimension of Extraterritorial Abortion Regulation