Next book

IS THE FETUS A PERSON?

A COMPARISON OF POLICIES ACROSS THE FIFTY STATES

A well-researched and well-reasoned contribution to our continuing and contentious national conversation on fetal personhood...

From Schroedel (Policy and Politics/Claremont Graduate School), a thoughtful legal and philosophical examination of the problem of fetal personhood, with implications for public policy and criminal law.

The issue of whether the human fetus should be treated as a person is significant not only for abortion policy, but also for the law governing substance abuse by pregnant women. After presenting a historical analysis of Christian and Anglo-American ideas of fetal personhood, Schroedel attacks this problem by comprehensively examining post–Roe v. Wade abortion law in all 50 states and contrasting the arguments developed in the abortion debate (by pro-choice groups that deny fetal personhood in opposition to pro-life groups that assert it) with laws on the issues of prenatal substance abuse and third-party fetal killings. Finding inconsistencies in most states in fetal personhood policy, the author concludes that states with strong anti-abortion policies tend to be more interested in protecting fetuses from substance abuse by the mother than from third-party acts of violence. Broadly, Schroedel concludes that states with pro-life abortion laws “are consistent in according lower political, social, and economic status to women” and “less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children.” Acknowledging that differences in moral perspective are sincere, and observing that inconsistencies in fetal personhood policy are not necessarily hypocritical, the author calls for greater consistency in fetal personhood policy and for laws that consistently protect the rights of vulnerable women and children.

A well-researched and well-reasoned contribution to our continuing and contentious national conversation on fetal personhood and abortion laws.

Pub Date: July 1, 2000

ISBN: 0-8014-3707-5

Page Count: 256

Publisher: Cornell Univ.

Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 1, 2000

Next book

AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Custer died for your sins. And so, this book would seem to suggest, did every other native victim of colonialism.

Inducing guilt in non-native readers would seem to be the guiding idea behind Dunbar-Ortiz’s (Emerita, Ethnic Studies/California State Univ., Hayward; Blood on the Border: A Memoir of the Contra War, 2005, etc.) survey, which is hardly a new strategy. Indeed, the author says little that hasn’t been said before, but she packs a trove of ideological assumptions into nearly every page. For one thing, while “Indian” isn’t bad, since “[i]ndigenous individuals and peoples in North America on the whole do not consider ‘Indian’ a slur,” “American” is due to the fact that it’s “blatantly imperialistic.” Just so, indigenous peoples were overwhelmed by a “colonialist settler-state” (the very language broadly applied to Israelis vis-à-vis the Palestinians today) and then “displaced to fragmented reservations and economically decimated”—after, that is, having been forced to live in “concentration camps.” Were he around today, Vine Deloria Jr., the always-indignant champion of bias-puncturing in defense of native history, would disavow such tidily packaged, ready-made, reflexive language. As it is, the readers who are likely to come to this book—undergraduates, mostly, in survey courses—probably won’t question Dunbar-Ortiz’s inaccurate assertion that the military phrase “in country” derives from the military phrase “Indian country” or her insistence that all Spanish people in the New World were “gold-obsessed.” Furthermore, most readers won’t likely know that some Ancestral Pueblo (for whom Dunbar-Ortiz uses the long-abandoned term “Anasazi”) sites show evidence of cannibalism and torture, which in turn points to the inconvenient fact that North America wasn’t entirely an Eden before the arrival of Europe.

A Churchill-ian view of native history—Ward, that is, not Winston—its facts filtered through a dense screen of ideology.

Pub Date: Sept. 16, 2014

ISBN: 978-0-8070-0040-3

Page Count: 296

Publisher: Beacon Press

Review Posted Online: Aug. 17, 2014

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2014

Next book

GOOD ECONOMICS FOR HARD TIMES

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

“Quality of life means more than just consumption”: Two MIT economists urge that a smarter, more politically aware economics be brought to bear on social issues.

It’s no secret, write Banerjee and Duflo (co-authors: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way To Fight Global Poverty, 2011), that “we seem to have fallen on hard times.” Immigration, trade, inequality, and taxation problems present themselves daily, and they seem to be intractable. Economics can be put to use in figuring out these big-issue questions. Data can be adduced, for example, to answer the question of whether immigration tends to suppress wages. The answer: “There is no evidence low-skilled migration to rich countries drives wage and employment down for the natives.” In fact, it opens up opportunities for those natives by freeing them to look for better work. The problem becomes thornier when it comes to the matter of free trade; as the authors observe, “left-behind people live in left-behind places,” which explains why regional poverty descended on Appalachia when so many manufacturing jobs left for China in the age of globalism, leaving behind not just left-behind people but also people ripe for exploitation by nationalist politicians. The authors add, interestingly, that the same thing occurred in parts of Germany, Spain, and Norway that fell victim to the “China shock.” In what they call a “slightly technical aside,” they build a case for addressing trade issues not with trade wars but with consumption taxes: “It makes no sense to ask agricultural workers to lose their jobs just so steelworkers can keep theirs, which is what tariffs accomplish.” Policymakers might want to consider such counsel, especially when it is coupled with the observation that free trade benefits workers in poor countries but punishes workers in rich ones.

Occasionally wonky but overall a good case for how the dismal science can make the world less—well, dismal.

Pub Date: Nov. 12, 2019

ISBN: 978-1-61039-950-0

Page Count: 432

Publisher: PublicAffairs

Review Posted Online: Aug. 28, 2019

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 15, 2019

Close Quickview