Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

The revised printing of Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History is updated to reflect the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, the 2022 United States Supreme Court case that overruled its earlier decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and returned the issue of abortion to the States. The book retains its core discussion of Roe v. Wade, specifically how Justice Harry Blackmun structured the argument of the majority around the history of abortion laws. That history built on the work of law professor Cyril Means, Jr., and historian James Mohr. Means and Mohr proclaim four theses as summarizing the "true" history of abortion in England and America:

(1) Abortion was not a crime "at common law" (before the enactment of abortion statutes in the nineteenth century).

(2) Abortion was common and relatively safe during this time.

(3) Abortion statutes were enacted in the nineteenth century in order to protect the life of the mother rather than the life of the embryo or fetus.

(4) The moving force behind the nineteenth-century statutes was the attempt of the male medical profession to suppress competition from competing practitioners of alternative forms of medicine.

This book dispels these myths and sets forth the true history of abortion and abortion law in English and American society. Anglo-American law always treated abortion as a serious crime, generally including early in pregnancy. Prosecutions and even executions go back 800 years in England, establishing law that carried over to colonial America. The reasons offered for these prosecutions and penalties consistently focused on protecting the life of the unborn child. This unbroken tradition refutes the claims that unborn children have not been treated as persons in our law or as persons under the Constitution of the United States.

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Within traditional legal analysis, when a claim is made to a right that is not expressed in the text of the US Constitution (e.g., women's right to abortion), judges turn for guidance to the history and tradition of the practice. In this way, historians can influence judicial decision making. In this behemoth of a work, Dellapenna (Villanova Univ.) challenges what he terms "the new orthodox history of abortion" as constructed by Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade, historians like James Mohr and Cyril Means Jr., and feminists like Linda Gordon, Rosalind Petchesky, and Catharine MacKinnon. Specifically, Dellapenna argues against two presumptions: "that abortion was common throughout history; and that ... abortion was in fact seldom punished." He meticulously constructs and presents his refutation in dense chapters written in the style of law review articles. The impressive breadth and depth of this volume recommend it for college collections. Less impressive are the unnecessary swipes Dellapenna takes at other authors, accusing them, for example, of deliberately distorting the facts to promote a pro-choice agenda. Includes a table of cases. ^BSumming Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates and above. S. Behuniak Le Moyne College