Stanford University Press Blog

RECOMMENDED READING ON THE TOPIC OF REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM

Exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court building. Photo by Ken Hammond. Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

 

In light of the Supreme Court's recently leaked draft opinion on abortion, we are reposting our recommended reading list centered around reproductive freedom. We have endeavored to include books from not just a political vantage point, but also from historical and international perspectives.

 

Lawful Sins: Abortion Rights and Reproductive Governance in Mexico »

ELYSE ONA SINGER

 

Mexico is at the center of the global battle over abortion. In 2007, a watershed reform legalized the procedure in the national capital, making it one of just three places across Latin America where it was permitted at the time. Abortion care is now available on demand and free of cost through a pioneering program of the Mexico City Ministry of Health, which has served hundreds of thousands of women. At the same time, abortion laws have grown harsher in several states outside the capital as part of a coordinated national backlash.

In this book, Elyse Ona Singer argues that while pregnant women in Mexico today have options that were unavailable just over a decade ago, they are also subject to the expanded reach of the Mexican state and the Catholic Church over their bodies and reproductive lives. By analyzing the moral politics of clinical encounters in Mexico City's public abortion program, Lawful Sins offers a critical account of the relationship among reproductive rights, gendered citizenship, and public healthcare. With timely insights on global struggles for reproductive justice, Singer reorients prevailing perspectives that approach abortion rights as a hallmark of women's citizenship in liberal societies.

 

The New States of Abortion Politics »

JOSHUA C. WILSON

 

The 2014 Supreme Court ruling on McCullen v. Coakley striking down a Massachusetts law regulating anti-abortion activism marked the reengagement of the Supreme Court in abortion politics. A throwback to the days of clinic-front protests, the decision seemed a means to reinvigorate the old street politics of abortion. The Court's ruling also highlights the success of a decades' long effort by anti-abortion activists to transform the very politics of abortion. The New States of Abortion Politics, written by leading scholar Joshua C. Wilson, tells the story of this movement, from streets to legislative halls to courtrooms.

With the end of clinic-front activism, lawyers and politicians took on the fight. Anti-abortion activists moved away from a doomed frontal assault on Roe v. Wade and adopted an incremental strategy—putting anti-abortion causes on the offensive in friendly state forums and placing reproductive rights advocates on the defense in the courts. The Supreme Court ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016 makes the stakes for abortion politics higher than ever. This book elucidates how—and why.

Rethinking Trump’s Refusal to Concede

Perhaps He Really Did Win the 2020 Election

TIMOTHY K. KUHNER

November 26, 2020— President Donald J.Trump on a Thanksgiving video teleconference call to Military  Service Personnel. By The White House from Washington, DC. Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons

Prior to November 3, 2020, 35% of Republican voters believed the election was going to be unfair. President Donald Trump had told them so. In July, he claimed that “2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.” And at a Wisconsin campaign event in August, Trump warned his supporters that “the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”

These statements coincide with hundreds of others that Trump has made since losing the popular vote (by nearly 3 million votes) to Hillary Clinton. That four-year campaign culminated in Trump’s announcement, at 2 AM on November 4, 2020, that he intended to remain in office regardless of the vote:

 “This is a fraud on the American public,” he stated. “Frankly, we did win this election [and] we want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.” With these words, Trump attempted to stop state election officials from counting lawfully cast ballots within the existing deadlines.

After all the major news networks had called the election for Joe Biden, Trump Tweeted I WON THE ELECTION and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured the world, “There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” 

By that same time, the percentage of Republicans questioning the fairness of the vote had doubled. According to a Politico/Morning Consult Poll, 70% of Republican voters deny that Biden and Harris won a “free and fair election.” A survey by the Economist and YouGov puts the percentage even higher, at 86%. That figure dovetails with polls indicating that the percentage of conservatives who trust the mainstream media declined to 13% during Trump’s first term.

Closing the Gap in India

How shortages of antiretroviral therapies could jeopardize India’s race to eradicate AIDS.

by CECILIA VAN HOLLEN

World AIDS Day in 2011 marked the launch of the UNAIDS campaign “Getting to Zero” with a bold call for zero new HIV infections, zero AIDS-related discrimination, and zero AIDS-related deaths by 2015. As we approach 2015 we should indeed celebrate the great strides the world has made in the battle against HIV/AIDS in each of these three arenas—but we must also acknowledge that much work remains to address the grave inequalities of access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care and support services worldwide. This year’s World AIDS Day theme of “Close the Gap” signals the UN’s commitment to enabling all people, everywhere, to access the services they need—a message particularly salient for India, as the country struggles to make crucial treatments widely available.  

“Close the Gap” signals the UN’s commitment to enabling all people, everywhere, to access the services they need.

With approximately 2.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS, India has the third largest HIV-positive population worldwide. Whereas global health experts prophesized doomsday scenarios about India’s AIDS epidemic at the beginning of the 21st century, today they tout India as a success story. Indeed India’s record in reining in this epidemic is commendable. India witnessed a 57% decline in new HIV infections between 2000 and 2011; a 38% decline in AIDS-related deaths between 2005 and 2013; and it now has a relatively low adult HIV prevalence rate of 0.3% (compared to Swaziland’s 26.5% and to the United States’ 0.6%).

Russia’s Tomorrow, Today

As the space for debate in Moscow shrinks, the options for the country’s future look ever narrower.

by SAM GREENE

A view of the Kremlin from the Bolshoy Kamenny Bridge. Photo by Pavel Kazachkov. CC-BY-2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The news and the invitation were waiting for me, both, when I got off the plane from London to Moscow. I saw the invitation first—from a long-time colleague, to attend a workshop on the future of Russian politics later this month at Memorial, the venerable Russian historical society and human rights organization. I saw the news two hours later: 17 days after that workshop, Russia’s High Court will hold a hearing on the government’s demand that Memorial be liquidated.

That is the condition of life in Russia these days: two hours in which an invitation takes on a funerary pallor, 17 days in which the world becomes immeasurably smaller. Rarely has the distance between today and tomorrow been so great and so fraught as it is now.

Putin's intolerance of independent rights groups extends even to Memorial, which documents Soviet atrocities. http://t.co/Hk6LSRIdho

— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) October 18, 2014

Tweet from Ken Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.

The Cultural Schism of Climate Change

How science takes a back seat to identity politics in the U.S.

by ANDREW HOFFMAN

"Climate Change?!" by Eric Wüstenhagen. Creative commons image via Flickr.

In January 2014, the Eastern and Southern United States were plunged into extraordinarily frigid temperatures that stranded air travelers, stressed power grids, closed schools, and killed more than 20 people. In all, the lives of more than 187 million people (roughly 60% of Americans) were affected by the record-breaking cold. Meteorologists identified the “Polar Vortex” as the culprit; a large cyclone, first studied in 1853, that circles at the poles of the Earth. And, much to their dismay, they watched it become yet another flash point in the rhetorical war over climate change.

Climate change has been transformed into a rhetorical contest more akin to the spectacle of a sports match.

On the one side, Rush Limbaugh called the Polar Vortex an invention of the liberal left to further promote the “global warming agenda.” Fox News referred to it as the “so-called” Polar Vortex and aired multiple pundits claiming that global warming cannot be true because it was so cold. Under a regular blog called “Planet Gore” (named for former Vice President Al Gore), the National Review mocked “alarmists” for a tendency to believe that “There is absolutely nothing that ‘global warming’ can’t be linked to if you try hard enough.”  Adding fodder for the war, a Russian research vessel became stranded in the Arctic while studying, among other things, global warming. That led Donald Trump to enter the fray:

Botching the 8th Amendment

Does the death penalty constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment?

by AUSTIN SARAT

Lethal injection room. Public domain image via Wikimedia Commons.

2014 has been an extraordinary year for America’s death penalty. From the near miss abolition in New Hampshire to a California judge declaring the state’s death penalty unconstitutional; from a series of high profile botched executions to the April publication of a study estimating that 340 people may have been put to death unjustly since 1973 (a study, tellingly followed by the exoneration of two death row inmates)—capital punishment has been very much in the headlines. President Obama has even acknowledged that “In the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems—racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence. And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied.”

Comments like those of the president, headlines like the ones we’ve seen this year, indicate the turmoil that has come to surround the death penalty. Of late it seems the conversation about capital punishment has taken a sharply different direction. More and more Americans seem to be asking not what the death penalty does for us but rather what the death penalty is doing to us and to some of our most cherished values.

A New Era of Political Exclusion

Should wealth be permitted to amplify individuals' democratic participation?

by TIM KUHNER

In 1972, milk producers pledged $2 million to the reelection campaign of sitting president, Richard Nixon. In response, Nixon’s administration provided price supports worth over two hundred times that amount. Clement Stone, Nixon’s top individual campaign contributor, also gave $2 million. Meanwhile, the average contribution of Nixon’s largest ten donors was $400,000 each. The record from the Watergate Scandal documents the corruption that resulted, including the selling of ambassadorships and public acts to large campaign contributors. Never once since Watergate had it been legal for any single donor to donate such large sums to candidates and party committees—until this April that is.

Going forward, an ever-tinier sliver of wealthy Americans will control the financing of campaigns and political parties.

Handed down on April second of this year, McCutcheon v. FEC strikes down the federal limit on the total amount of money that any particular donor could give to candidates, PACs, and party committees. The Federal Election Campaign Finance Reform Act— Congress’ response to the Watergate Scandal—prohibits any donor from giving more than $5,200 to any one candidate, $32,400 to a single national party committee, $10,000 to any state or local party committee, and $5,000 to any particular PAC. Beyond those “base limits,” the Watergate reforms also implemented “aggregate limits,” prohibiting any particular donor from giving over $123,200 total to all candidates, PACs, and party committees.

Copyright in the Digital Age

What do new cord-cutting technologies mean for copyright law?

by JESSICA SILBEY

Aereo's digital antennae allow subscribers to stream broadcasts transmitted over public airwaves.

In the newest iteration of DVR technology, Aereo—a newly launched tech company in New York City—has come under fire for selling a service that allows subscribers to watch television programs over the Internet. Aereo’s unique business model consists of leasing antennae to subscribers who can then retransmit television broadcasts (hours or even just seconds after their original air-time) to their internet-enabled devices, whether a laptop, tablet, or smartphone. As of 2012 the service offered the retransmission of programming from twenty-eight channels, including all major broadcast channels. 

Alarmed by this latest innovation in the cord-cutting online TV trend, a slew of broadcasters, including such heavy-hitters as CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox, sued the nascent company for copyright infringement. They construe Aereo’s business model as analogous to that of a cable company—as a redistribution channel for media to the public—the only problem is, unlike the cable company, Aereo does not pay a license to television producers or broadcasters to retransmit that media, and in their view, is in violation of their copyright claims. Aereo, however, argues that its service is more akin to existing DVR, VCR, and DVD technologies—other equipment-based technologies whose “record” and “play” functions, under the current law, do not constitute copyright infringement.

Religious Freedom in the Commercial Sphere

Are people organized as corporations entitled to constitutional rights?

by ILYA SOMIN

Hobby Lobby Store in Ohio. Creative Commons image via Wikimedia Commons.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby addressed a seemingly narrow issue: whether the Obamacare regulation requiring corporate employers to provide insurance plans that cover contraception violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in cases where the employers in question have religious objections to some or all contraceptives. But the Court’s ruling also makes a crucial broader point: that people are not required to give up fundamental legal rights when they organize themselves into a corporate body. That principle has important implications for constitutional law. It is a vital protection for individual rights in a society where we unavoidably conduct much of our business and charitable activities by using corporate organizations.

It is indeed true that corporations are not people. But those who own and operate them are.

RFRA was enacted in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support. It protects religious freedom by requiring the federal government to prove that laws that “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion are the least restrictive means to protecting a “compelling” government interest. The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores and other businesses involved in the case objected to being forced to provide insurance for some forms of contraception because they belong to the small minority of Americans who believe that some or all types of artificial contraception violate the dictates of their religion.

Constitutional Questions of 2014: A Blog Series

From Hobby Lobby to capital punishment—a reflection on this year's constitutional issues.

As the Supreme Court returns to the bench on Monday, the Stanford Press blog offers a brief retrospective on some of the defining constitutional questions of 2014, including commentary on such high profile cases as Hobby Lobby, McCutcheon, and Aereo, as well as a reflection on perhaps one of the biggest constitutional quandaries not to feature on the SCOTUS docket this year: the death penalty and its concomitant legacy of botched procedures. See the full lineup for this week’s series below.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
IN THE COMMERCIAL SPHERE
Are people organized as corporations entitled to constitutional rights?
by ILYA SOMIN
Tuesday

COPYRIGHT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
What do new cord-cutting technologies mean for copyright law? 
by JESSICA SILBEY
Wednesday

A NEW ERA IN POLITICAL EXCLUSION
In a democratic state, should wealth be permitted to amplify individuals’ political influence?
by TIM KUHNER
Thursday

BOTCHING THE 8th AMENDMENT
Does the death penalty inherently constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment?
by AUSTIN SARAT
Friday

Ferguson Syllabus

A lesson from tragedy: Why citizenship does not remedy racial inequality.

A popular refrain from protesters in Ferguson.

The death of Michael Brown at the hands of a Missouri police officer in Ferguson just over two weeks ago has reinvigorated a contentious national conversation about race and justice. An NPR news correspondent, reporting on the President’s remarks on Ferguson, notes that Obama has assumed an even-handed approach, aiming to turn this (and other racially charged events during his presidency) into a “teachable moment.” A groundswell of educators, students, and others have mimicked this tack, taking to Twitter to mint the hashtag #FergusonSyllabus, where users of the hashtag are creating a digital trove of resources, sharing links to books, lesson plans, and other articles of note related to Michael Brown’s shooting and race-based inequality more broadly.

 

Reading Rec for #FergusonSyllabus, "The State of White Supremacy: Racism, Governance, and the US," ed. vol. w/ @stanfordpress - great essays

— Kaitlyn Patia (@kpatia) August 20, 2014

Looking Glass Against the Wall, Who Is the Freest of Us All?

Why Gaza is rivaled and reviled by Israel.

by KHALED FURANI

"Schneewittchen 1" (Snow White 1) by Franz Jüttner, public domain image via Wikimedia Commons

As I grope for understanding in these dark times, for reasons not entirely clear to me, I find myself assailed by the Brothers Grimm tale, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I do not aim to pursue a flat analogy that renders Israel the scheming Wicked Queen and the Palestinians, the fair and gentle Snow White. But in a state where facts and fables are rather interlaced (for instance, “Jewish and democratic”), fables can at times illuminate facts.

Israel’s chronic onslaught on Gaza hearkens back to the Queen’s deadly arrogance.  Launched after two rounds of massive killing in 2008 and 2012, this most recent Israeli binge (depicted by the powers that be as “Israel’s right to defend itself”–read  “its might to defend its occupation”) has, as of this writing [July 31], killed 1,364 Palestinians in 24 days, with 56 Israeli soldiers and 3 civilians joining the body count.

But you may wonder how the fable’s pretense relates. You recall that the Queen cannot bear being rivaled by Snow White’s beauty. I maintain that Israel, “the only democracy (sic) in the Middle East,” cannot tolerate Palestinian political will, self-determination, sovereignty, or even mere presence. Therefore Israel doggedly works to crush Gaza’s freedom, a freedom and persistence of will that keeps Gazans in their homeland despite Israel’s doublespeak-veiled efforts to expunge them.

Palestine as Archive

What's happening in Gaza today is far from an isolated event; it's one instance of the Palestinian condition.

by SHERENE SEIKALY

A man and his young son sit on two cement blocks, surrounded by piles of rubble that were once their home, on the edges of what was once their street. Their postures mirror one another. With thin arms dangling over knobby knees, fingers clasped, and eyes downcast, they survey the losses. They ponder the next step.

It was 16 July, eight days after the Israeli military commenced its onslaught on the Gaza Strip. This image, like many, would circulate through multiple venues around the world. It expressed the desperation of the Gaza Strip.

Beginning at nine in the evening of 19 July, Israeli tanks, artillery, and missiles pounded the residents of one of Gaza City’s poorest and most overcrowded neighborhoods, Shuja’iya. The Israeli media and its European and US cohorts script these people as “human shields.” With the adjective “shield” these media pundits render 1.8 million people external to the category of the human. Their mere existence, as Palestinians on what remains of the land of Palestine, effectively renders them non-human.

Beltaji street, east of #Shujaiya during the 2 hours ceasefire #Gaza pic.twitter.com/K17AM2iAQP

— Hazem Balousha (@iHaZeMi) July 20, 2014

The next morning the streets of Shuja’iya were lined with corpses and body parts. A matriarch with a blood-spattered headscarf cried in shock. A young man lay immobilized in the rubble; he called out to God just before an Israeli sniper killed him. The people that remained fled in terror, racing for their lives under ongoing assault. A dark cloud hung over them as they walked, drove, or rode away in wheelchairs leaving their homes behind.

Boom: A Photo Essay

Construction and destruction in Shatila and Gaza.

by DIANA ALLAN

All photos courtesy of Hisham Ghuzlan

When I visited Shatila last week two topics dominated conversation: the carnage in Gaza and the deleterious effects of the construction boom underway in the camp. I’ll take them in turn, though Shatilans usually don’t; for them, each topic seems the underbelly of the other.

Building in Shatila has long been described by residents as a kind of cancer, its growth both irregular and hazardous. The waves of Syrians and Palestinians fleeing Syria since 2011 have caused it to metastasize. Two years ago its population was estimated at 21,000, around 9000 of them Palestinian. Friends tell me the influx of refugees, alongside the steady flow of Lebanese and labor migrants seeking cheap housing in Beirut, has brought the number closer to 35,000. Shatila’s density rivals that of Gaza City.

The camp has spatially transformed since my last visit in 2012. For the first time I found myself unable to recognize certain streets. The building I lived in has grown by three floors­­; others have grown by four. The memory of natural light cools near windows now giving out onto cinderblocks. There is a pervasive sense of foreboding; miming the blind, hands outstretched, my former neighbor told me she now prayed for divine guidance when the electricity cut. Services already overextended are collapsing under the strain. Electricity cuts are now constant, the water has turned salty as the camp’s wells run dry­ (“even the earth is crying!” said one resident) and the overflow of sewage and garbage is now overwhelming. “Our blood is boiling over Gaza, but also over conditions here—we can barely move or breathe,” explained Abu Hasan, who has lived in Shatila for forty years. “We’re dying everywhere.”

Views on Gaza: A Blog Series

Scholars reflect on the recent intensification of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After three weeks of bloodshed and failed cease-fires, the violence in Gaza shows few signs of letting up. This week, the Stanford Press blog presents a 10-part series, featuring essays from noteworthy scholars on the ongoing crisis in Gaza, as well as reflections on the Arab-Israeli conflict writ large. See the full list of posts in the Gaza series below.

A CITY-SIZED PRISON-HOUSE

With Israeli forces besieging Gaza again, Western ambivalence is inexcusable.
by LORI ALLEN

ISOLATING GAZA

The restriction of Palestinian movement in Gaza and elsewhere has long been a central tactic of the Israeli occupation.
by ILANA FELDMAN

SEAM ZONES, SECURITY ZONES, DEATH ZONES, AND WALLS

How Israel controls and contains the Palestinians within its borders.
by LALEH KHALILI