No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reviews in Medical Ethics: Abortion Distortion: A Review of by Joseph W. Dellapenna
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- JLME Column
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2007
Footnotes
Robin Wilson, J.D., serves as the Review Editor for the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Professor Wilson is a Professor of Law at Washington & Lee University and presently serves as Chair-Elect of the Section on Law, Medicine and Health Care of the Association of American Law Schools. (rwilson@law.umaryland.edu)
References
Butler, S., Erewhon Revisited in The Works of Samuel Butler vol. 16 (New York: AMS Press, 1968): 128–140, at132.Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg 138 L Ed 2d 772 at 781 (1997) per Chief Justice Rehnquist.Google Scholar
Williams, G., The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (London: Faber & Faber, 1958): at 141. This influential book was an expanded version of the Carpentier lectures Williams delivered in 1956 at Columbia Law School.Google Scholar
Brief of 281 American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 U.S. 490 (1989).Google Scholar
Mohr, J. C., Abortion in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). This was, until now, the leading book on the 19th century anti-abortion legislation.Google Scholar
See Brief, supra note 5, at 4–8.Google Scholar
Id., at 11–16, 25–28.Google Scholar
Id., at 5–10.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., “The Great Abortion Case,” New York Review of Books, vol. 36, no. 13 (1989): 49–53, at 50.Google Scholar
Dellapenna, J. W., Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Id., at 18.Google Scholar
Id., at ix-x.Google Scholar
Id., at 234.Google Scholar
Id., at 216.Google Scholar
Id., at 684.Google Scholar
Id., at 295.Google Scholar
Id., at 313.Google Scholar
See Mohr, supra note 6, at 216.Google Scholar
Id., at 166.Google Scholar
Id., at 230.Google Scholar
Commenting on the 19th-century U.S. legislation, Williams accepted that it was “passed for the protection of the unborn child and not as a form of control of unregistered medical practitioners.” See Williams, supra note 3, at 176.Google Scholar
See Dellapenna, supra note 11, at 334.Google Scholar
Id., at 341.Google Scholar
Id., at 548.Google Scholar
Id., at 1063.Google Scholar
Id., at 461.Google Scholar
Id., at 374–375.Google Scholar
Id., at 388.Google Scholar
Grisez, G. G., Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments (New York: Corpus Books, 1970).Google Scholar
Means helped draft the Historians' Brief, and Mohr was a lead signatory. Mohr later denied that the Brief was “history” and said it was a “political” document. Mohr, J. C., “Historically Based Legal Briefs: Observations of a Participant in the Webster Process,” Public Historian 12, no. 3 (1990): at 20, 25. However, the Brief claimed to represent historical fact, and those who signed it put their reputations as historians behind it. For a critique of the Brief, see Keown, J., “Back to the Future of Abortion Law: Roe's Rejection of America's History and Traditions,” Issues in Law & Medicine 22, no. 1 (2006): 3-37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Dellapenna, supra note 11, at 640.Google Scholar
Id., at 553.Google Scholar
Id., at 956.Google Scholar
Id., at 958.Google Scholar
Id., at 786.Google Scholar
Id., at 1087.Google Scholar
Id., at 677.Google Scholar
Id., at 18, note 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keown, J., Abortion, Doctors and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, J., “‘Shameless Acts’ in Colorado: Abuse of Scholarship in Constitutional Cases” Academic Questions 7, no. 4 (1994): 10–41, at 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar