Suchergebnisse

Review of four books on women of color and reproductive justice: Jennifer Nelson, WOMEN OF COLOR AND THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS MOVEMENT; Jael Sillimen, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross, & Elena R. Gutierrez, UNDIVIDED RIGHTS: WOMEN OF COLOR ORGANIZE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE; Dorothy Roberts, KILLING THE BLACK BODY: RACE, REPRODUCTION, AND THE MEANING OF LIBERTY.

Review of four books on women of color and reproductive justice: Jennifer Nelson, WOMEN OF COLOR AND THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS MOVEMENT; Jael Sillimen, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross, & Elena R. Gutierrez, UNDIVIDED RIGHTS: WOMEN OF COLOR ORGANIZE FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE; Dorothy Roberts, KILLING THE BLACK BODY: RACE, REPRODUCTION, AND THE MEANING OF LIBERTY.

Black feminism, women of color studies, reproducitve justice, pro choice, Jennifer Nelson, Dorothy Roberts, Jael Sillimen, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross, Elena R. Gutierrez

Thirty-four US states currently require pregnant minors either to notify their parents or get their consent before having a legal abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of theses statutes provided that minors are also given an alternative mechanism for abortion approval that does not involve parents. The mechanism used is the 'judicial bypass hearing' at which minors persuade judges that they are mature and informed enough to make the abortion decision themselves. While most minors receive judicial approval, the hearings intrude into the most personal aspects of a young woman's life. The hearings, while formally civil in nature, can be punitive in tone. Parental involvement statutes are often couched in the language of family communications and protecting minors. They are politically popular because they offer politicians the chance to be pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-family all at once. This paper argues that parental involvement statutes are less concerned with developing nuanced policies to improve the quality of teenage health or decision making than with securing a set of political goals aimed at making abortion harder to get, restoring parental authority, and punishing girls for having sex.

This article review: Merike Blofield. The Politics of Moral Sin: Abortion and Divorce in Spain, Chile and Argentina. New York & London: Routledge, 2006. ISBN 0–415–97775–4.

The right to health under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a signatory, entitles women to available, accessible, and acceptable abortion care. Abortion care in Canada currently fails this standard. Medication abortion (the use of drugs to terminate a pregnancy) could improve abortion care in Canada, but its potential remains unrealized.

The autonomy granted to physicians is based on the claim that their decisions are grounded in scientific principles. But a case study of the evolution of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' abortion policy between 1951 and 1973 shows that decisions were only secondarily determined by science. The principal determinant was the need to preserve physician autonomy over the organization and delivery of services.

This study examines how ideologically opposed social movement organizations, the National Organization for Women (NOW) and Concerned Women for America (CWA), get media coverage during critical moments of the abortion debate. I analyze how organizational structure and identity facilitate or constrain a social movement organization's ability to get mainstream media coverage. Specifically, I use the social movement framing literature to analyze how the organizations strategically construct media frames and packages in response to opposition, the tactics they use to get media coverage, and the relative success of each organization's efforts in mass media outlets. The analysis suggests that an organization's media strategy matters, but that organizational structure and organizational identity color these strategies.

Family physicians who wish to provide abortions have been subject to both denial of coverage by medical liability insurers and the imposition of large premium increases. These policy decisions by insurance companies raise questions about the role of family physicians in abortion care and about the autonomy of medical specialties in defining their scope of practice.

This Article is an exercise in comparative constitutional law and politics. It is both descriptive and analytical. It explores how--and explains why--Canada and the United States have mediated the tension between the right of access to abortion clinics and the freedom of religious expression. It also illuminates why both nations have privileged the right of access to abortion clinics over the right to free religious expression.

Most people prefer not to inflict gratuitous pain on other sentient beings, especially other humans. What, then, should be the legal system's reaction to the mounting evidence that in late-term abortions doctors are inflicting just such pain on fetuses who have the anatomical, physiological, and neurological capacity to experience it? The pain being inflicted is gratuitous because it can be easily avoided with no significant increases in cost or health risk by the administration of tar geted fetal pain relief. If informed that an abortion is likely to cause pain to the fetus and given a choice between a procedure that would inflict fetal pain and a slightly more expensive but safe procedure that would not do so, would not most women facing a late-term abortion choose the latter? Such is the premise of this Note, which argues that states should pass legislation to decrease the gratuitous infliction of pain in late-term abortions. Legislation is necessary for informed choice on this matter because most women are not given the choice to make for themselves. Legislation is appropriate because "[t]he State's constitutional author ity is a vital means for citizens to address [the] grave and serious issues [surrounding abortion], as [we] must if we are to progress in knowledge and understanding and in the attainment of some degree of consensus." Part I of this Note describes the scientific evidence supporting the claims that the human fetus may experience pain as early as the thirteenth week of development, probably experiences pain by the twentieth week, and almost definitely experiences pain by the twenty-eighth week. Part II argues that legislation to address fetal pain during late term abortions is necessary because physicians performing such procedures usually do not treat fetal pain as a distinct problem and there fore typically do not provide women with the option of fetal pain relief. Part III discusses legal and prudential considerations relevant to the design of such legislation and concludes with proposed ...

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/heiwa/JNL/25/HOFFMANN.pdf ; This article illustrates a new style of politics, the New Political Culture (NPC), which began in many countries in the 1970s. It has become dominant in some locations. It defines new rules of the game for politics, challenging two older traditions: class politics and clientelism. Advocates of the New Political Culture include Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Francois Mitterrand. They revolutionized the politics of their countries by embracing NPC issues. These include citizen democracy, environmentalism, gay rights, and abortion—generally consumption and lifestyle issues, with less emphasis on workplace and jobs than in the past. Leadership comes less from parties, unions, and ethnic groups in coalitions of rich versus poor, or high- versus low-status persons. Rather, leadership shifts from issue to issue; leaders on abortion are distinct from leaders on environmental issues. Issue-specific leaders are thus more active, as are citizens and the media. This NPC emerges more fully and forcefully in cities and countries with more highly educated citizens, higher incomes, and high-tech service occupations. Political parties critically constrain elected officials who take positions and act. We present here the most comprehensive synthesis to date of past research on local party structures around the world including Japan, US, Canada, France, Finland, Norway, Australia, and Israel. We documents major differences in party penetration of government: minimal in Australia and Canada, deep in France and Italy. Parties also substantially vary in their openness to citizens and organized groups—of business labor, and others, as well as to new social movements concerning ecology and women. Parties founded on traditional class cleavages and unions, or clientelism and patronage by padrone, resist NPC developments—which can drive citizens to alienation, to protest, or to embrace new parties or organized groups.

Debate over "family values" is now a staple in American politics. My paper examines how that came to be. I focus on New York state from the 1970s through the 1980s when feminist activism and an emerging conservative family values movement competed side-by-side to define the family. Conservative activists, most of whom were white, suburban homemakers, helped shift New York's political culture to the Right—forcing feminists and politicians across all parties to frame their definition of family values along more conservative lines, especially with regard to issues such as state-subsidized daycare, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and abortion. My paper follows several important histories about the rise of political conservatism in postwar America. These works disproportionately explore how race and Cold War geopolitics influenced this trend, but few consider gender as I do. Yet, instead of focusing on a single conservative female activist (e.g., Phyllis Schlafly) or issue (e.g., abortion or the ERA) as some scholars have done, I more broadly examine how women on both the left and the right debated the above-mentioned issues in the 1970 and 1980s. I conclude that such debate ultimately produced a popular conception of feminism as "anti-family," while linking family values to [white] middle-to-upper class nuclear families, heterosexual marriage, and traditional gender roles.

This essay examines the changing social and political meaning of surrogacy contracts over the twenty years since this issue first attracted public attention in the context of the Baby M case in the 1980s. In the protracted course of the Baby M litigation, surrogacy was effectively framed as illegitimate commodification - baby selling and the exploitation of women. This framing can be attributed to a moral panic generated by the media, politicians and a coalition of interest groups opposing surrogacy - primarily feminists and religious conservatives. The framing of surrogacy as commodification had far reaching effects on legal regulation. In the post-Baby M period, lawmakers in many states moved to prohibit or severely restrict surrogacy arrangements. In recent years, however, the framing of surrogacy as commodification has been replaced to a large extent by a more benign characterization which emphasizes the useful service provided by surrogates to childless couples. Further, over the past decade, regulators increasingly have focused on the goal of reducing uncertainty and providing procedures to efficiently establish the parental status of intended parents. This essay seeks to explain these changes. Several factors have been important: First, hostility to surrogacy has declined because the moral panic has dissipated as many of the predicted harms have not been realized. Further, advances in in vitro fertilization (IVF) have expanded the use of gestational surrogacy, which is less readily framed as commodification and thus, more palatable than traditional surrogacy. Finally, the interest group dynamic has changed: Women's groups have withdrawn, plausibly because the kinds of arguments made against surrogacy increasingly were adopted by anti-abortion advocates. These conditions have contributed to a political climate in which lawmakers have adopted a pragmatic approach, regulating with a goal of minimizing the social cost of surrogacy.

I will examine the First Amendment to determine if the original intentions were different than how we interpret the separation of Church and State in the 21st Century America. I am going to test that by examining the current Presidential administration against literature and research about the Bill of Rights. Citizens of the United States are faced with certain issues similar to those of when the Bill of Rights was written. There is still a need for equality and tolerance, as the framers articulated, but given the current state of the country, the interaction between politics and religion must be different than it once was. There are certain issues that are clearly in the realm of religion, some in the realm of politics, but it cannot all be so cut and dry. There are certain issues that are controversial both for government and for religions. Who should address what and why? There are government freedoms and individual rights, both are interpreted by the courts but also by religious convictions. It is necessary to go back to the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and find the true relationship between the church and state. While there is no obvious solution to the question of the relationship between church and state, it appears that the First Amendment is necessary, establishing a separation between the two. However, a common perception seems to be that wall between church and state is infallible. This is inaccurate, because while the Government and Religion should remain separate, it is necessary for the two to maintain a relationship that allows for some interaction and a cohesive division. ; Religious Politics A closer look at the relationship between government and religion Religion 399 Spring 2006 Gustavus Adolphus College Anna Franzen Gustavus Student Repository - Thesis 2 Table of Contents Introduction 3 1. History of the First Amendment 7 2. Court Appointments and Court Findings 10 3. Faith Based Initiative 20 4. "Life Issues" 26 a. Right to Life: Abortion 26 b. Right to Live: Capital ...