Suchergebnisse

STATES HAVE EXERCISED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION IN AT LEAST SIX DIFFERENT WAYS DURING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (CHIP) PROVISION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997. STATES HAVE USED THIS FLEXIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHEN TO SUBMIT THEIR PLANS AND WHEN TO PUT THE CHIP PROGRAM INTO EFFECT. AFTER DESCRIBING THE PROBLEM OF UNINSURED CHILDREN IN AMERICA AND THE POLITICS OF PROGRAM ADOPTION, MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS IS USED TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHY HAVE SOME STATES MOVED MORE QUICKLY THAN OTHERS TO GET PLANS FOR INTRODUCING CHIP SUBMITTED, APPROVED, AND IMPLEMENTED? THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A STATE'S ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND HEALTH-NEED CHARACTERISTICS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THE TIMING OF SUBMISSION AND IMPLEMENTATION, ON THE OTHER, ARE EXAMINED.

A conservative majority on the Supreme Court, recent Supreme Court decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Hodgson v. Minnesota that give states more leeway to set abortion standards, actions by state legislatures and governors to pass new, tougher state antiabortion laws, as well as efforts by the Reagan and Bush administrations to prevent workers at federally funded family planning clinics from discussing with clients the availability of abortion services point to a new political climate surrounding the abortion issue. These recent developments also increase the chances that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the future. This essay defines the parameters of a "new" politics of abortion, offers a framework for understanding this post- Webster abortion politics, and suggests an agenda for future research. The argument advanced here is that the politics of abortion can best be understood by examining the nature and scope of the conflict over abortion and the institutional context within which that conflict takes place.

The scientific community is divided over the question of who should govern science. Most scientists are comfortable with a governing scheme which leaves science in the hands of scientists. Dissident scientists, with support from active members of the lay public, believe that science is too important to be left to scientists (Policy Research Incorporated, 1977; Miller, Prewitt, and Pearson, 1980).