Laura Guidry-Grimes

Scientists, clinicians, and bioethicists are worried about how so‐called personhood measures would limit access to certain types of contraception, research involving stem cells, and access to fertility treatments. While these measures have been struck down in Colorado, South Dakota, California, and Mississippi, the bill signed into law in Oklahoma in February deserves critical scrutiny, particularly into the ways these legal measures influence eligibility for clinical research. Oklahoma's bill states that the laws of the state “shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.”

How can social institutions complicate and worsen vulnerabilities of particular individuals or groups? We begin by explicating how certain diagnoses within mental health and medicine operate as interactive kinds of labels and how such labels can create institutional barriers that hinder one's capacity to achieve wellbeing. Interactive-kind modeling is a conceptual tool that elucidates the ways in which labeling can signal to others how the labeled person ought to be treated, how such labeling comes about and is perceived, and how it compounds vulnerabilities. We argue that this shift in standpoint helps us recognize and mitigate compounded vulnerabilities.