Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T08:18:43.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth Technologies: Prenatal Diagnosis and Abortion Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

John Brigham ,
Janet Rifkin  and
Christine G. Solt
John Brigham*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, USA
Janet Rifkin
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, USA
Christine G. Solt
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School, USA
*
Dr. Brigham at the Department of Political Science, Thompson Hall 434, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.
Get access

Abstract

This study of “birth technologies” such as amniocentesis and ultrasound explores their relationship to law in a correlative area, abortion politics, in order to assess the indirect influence of politics on technology. We begin nearly twenty years ago when these technologies were emerging and trace the story to the early 1990s. Our analysis suggests that abortion politics, filtered through such activities as grant-making and basic research, influenced the development of these technologies. We therefore propose a model of policy that includes both the relatively independent march of scientific research and technical applications and the operation of constraining forces, like political interests, on science and technique. Here, law is a vehicle that itself becomes illuminated as both politics and substance.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 31 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annas, G.J. (1989). “The Supreme Court, Privacy and Abortion.” New England Journal of Medicine 321:1200–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal v. Doe (1977). 432 US 438. 97 SCt 2366.Google Scholar
Beckwith, J. (1991). “Foreword: The Human Genome Initiative: Genetics' Lightning Rod.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 17:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman v. Allan (1979). 404 A2d. 8 at 9.Google Scholar
Brambati, B., Simoni, G., and Fabro, S. (1986). Chorionic Villus Sampling: Fetal Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases in the First Trimester. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Brigham, J. (1977). Making Public Policy. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Butler, J.D. and Walbert, D., eds. (1986). Abortion, Medicine, and the Law. Third Edition. New York: Facts on File Publications.Google Scholar
Canadian Collaborative CVS-Amniocentesis Clinical Trial Group (1989). “Multicentre Randomised Clinical Trial of Chorion Villus Sampling and Amniocentesis.” Lancet 1:1–6.Google Scholar
Committee on Science and Technology (1980). “Genetic Engineering, Human Genetics, and Cell Biology: Evolution of Technological Issues.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (1992a). “Health and Human Services Budget FY 1992-1993.” February 1.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (1992b). “House Resolution 2507.” February 8, 1992:309–310.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report (1992c). “House Resolution 2507.” April 4.Google Scholar
Cooper, T. (1976). “Implications of Findings from the Amniocentesis Registry for Public Policy.” Public Health Reports 91:116–117.Google Scholar
Curlender v. Bioscience Laboratories (1980). 165 Cal. Reporter 477.Google Scholar
Doe v. Bolton (1973). 410 U.S. 179. 93 SCt 739.Google Scholar
Donovan, P. (1990). “Funding Restrictions on Fetal Research: The Implications for Science and Health” Family Planning Perspectives 22:224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). 405 U.S. 438. 92 SCt 1029.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. (1973). The Genetic Fix: The Next Technological Revolution. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Evans, M., Fletcher, J.C., and Rodeck, C. (1989). “Ethical Problems in Multiple Gestation: Selective Termination.” In Evans, M. (ed.), Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy: Science, Ethics, and the Law. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
Frederickson, D.S. (1977). NIH Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
Friedman, J. (1974). “Legal Implications of Amniocentesis.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 123:92–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher v. Duke University (1988). 852 F.2d 773.Google Scholar
Gleitman v. Cosgrove (1967). 227 A2d. 689.Google Scholar
Golbus, M.S. (1974). “Intrauterine Diagnosis of Genetic Defects.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 118:310–313.Google Scholar
Goldstein, A. and Dumars, K. (1977). “Minimizing the Risk of Amniocentesis.” Journal of American Medical Association 237:1336–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman-Stapleton, O. (1990). “Prohibiting Amniocentesis in India: A Solution to the Problem of Female Infanticide or a Problem to the Solution of Prenatal Diagnosis.” ILSA Journal of International Law 14:23–43.Google Scholar
Harris v. McRae (1980). 448 US 297. 100 SCt 2671.Google Scholar
Hendin, D. (1978). The Genetic Connection: How to Protect Family against Hereditary Disease. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Henshaw, S.K., Koonin, L.M., and Smith, J.C. (1991). “Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1987.” Family Planning Perspectives 23:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard v. Lecher (1976). 366 NE2d. 64.Google Scholar
Huber, J. and Almeder, R. (1976). Biomedical Ethics and the Law. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs v. Theimer (1975). 519 SW2d 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson v. Griffin Spaulding Co. Hospital Authority (1981). 274 SE2d. 457.Google Scholar
Kammeyer, K. (1975). Population Studies: Selected Essays and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Kirschstein, R. (1977). Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, 95th Congress, 1st session.Google Scholar
Knopoff, K. (1991). “Can a Pregnant Woman Morally Refuse Fetal Surgery?” California Law Review 79:499–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapides, L. (1979). “The Sickle Cell Fight.” Chicago Journal, February 7.Google Scholar
Lejeune, J. and Turpin, R.A. (1969). Human Affliction and Chromosomal Aberration. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lippman, A. (1991). “Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening: Constructing Needs and Reinforcing Inequities.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 17:15–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippman-Hand, A. and Fraser, F.C. (1979). “Genetic Counseling I: Parents' Perceptions of Uncertainty.” American Journal of Medical Genetics 4:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luker, K. (1985). Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Massachusetts v. Secretary of HHS (1990). 899 F2d. 53.Google Scholar
Mohr, J. (1978). Abortion in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, T. (1991). “Target: Wichita.” Newsweek, 118(August 19):18–20.Google Scholar
Murray, R.F. (1972). “Problems Behind the Promise: Ethical Issues in Mass Genetic Screening.” Hastings Center Report 2:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York Times (1978a). “Statement by Milunsky, A.” February 19.Google Scholar
New York Times (1978b). “March of Dimes Denies It's Ending Genetic Work.” March 10:D14.Google Scholar
New York Times (1978c). “March of Dimes Group Declares Genetic Program Aid Will Go On.” March 15:A20.Google Scholar
New York Times (1979). “An Open Letter to Joseph Califano.” March 11.Google Scholar
Nichols, E.K. (1988). Human Gene Therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
“Notice of Research Project” (1973). No. 1 AM-12579-5. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Science Information Exchange.Google Scholar
Park v. Chessin (1975). 400 NY 2d 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act (1986). Section 3204 (c), Pennsylvania Constitution/Statutes Annotated.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). 120 L Ed 2d 674.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976). 428 U.S. 52. 96 SCt 2831.Google Scholar
Porter, I.H., Hatcher, N.H., and Willey, A.M. (1986). Perinatal Genetics: Diagnosis and Treatment. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Powledge, T.M. (1976). “Amniocentesis: Checking on Babies Not Yet Born.” New York Times, April 4:IV16.Google Scholar
Research Awards Index (1973-80). Washington, DC: H.E.W. Public Health Service.Google Scholar
Ressmeyer, T.J. (1992). “Public Opinion and Knowledge about Genetic Screening: The Link with Abortion.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Rhoads, G.G. et al (1989). “The Safety and Efficacy of Chorionic Villus Sampling for Early Prenatal Diagnosis of Cytogenetic Abnormalities.” New England Journal of Medicine 320:609–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rifkin, J. (1978). Telephone Interviews with OBGYN Practices in Hampshire County.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade (1973). 410 U.S. 113. 93 SCt 705.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G. (1991). Hollow Hope. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rust v. Sullivan (1991). 111 SCt. 1759.Google Scholar
Schmeck, H. (1975). “Member of Fetal Research Panel Objects to Some Proposals.” New York Times, May 21:C27.Google Scholar
Sheeran, P. (1987). Women, Society, The State and Abortion: A Structural Analysis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Sollom, T. (1991). “State Legislation on Reproductive Health in 1990: What was Proposed and Enacted.” Family Planning Perspectives 23(2):82–85,94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukla, S. (1983). “Campaign against Sex Determination Tests in India.” In Davies, M. (ed.), Third World, Second Sex. Second Edition. London: Zed Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, A. (1990). Prenatal Diagnosis: Confronting the Ethical Issues. London: Linacre Centre for the Study of Ethics in Health Care.Google Scholar
United States v. Vuitch (1971). 402 U.S. 62.Google Scholar
USCA (1991). 42 Section 300b 1-6. Supplement pp. 884–890.Google Scholar
Vandertak, J. (1974). Abortion, Fertility and Changing Legislation. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Watson, R. (1980). “Prenatal Testing is Called Underused.” New York Times, January 27:13.Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health (1989). 109 SCt 3040.Google Scholar
Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar