Vol. 15 No.1 (January 2005), pp.5-7

THE ABORTION RIGHTS CONTROVERSY IN AMERICA: A LEGAL READER, by N. E. H. Hull, Williamjames Hoffer, and Peter Charles Hoffer (eds).  Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.  352pp.  Cloth $59.95.  ISBN: 0-8078-2873-4.  Paper $24.95. ISBN: 0-8078-5535-9

Reviewed by: Matt Wetstein, Political Science, Delta College.  Email:  mwetstein@deltacollege.edu

The editors of this volume set out to compile a “documentary history of ideas” surrounding the abortion rights controversy in the U.S. (p.7).  In the process, they have delivered a nicely balanced and comprehensive collection of largely primary source documents that touch on abortion and reproductive rights issues running from the 1840s to the present.  The book provides a rich collection that will be well received by legal historians, professors who teach in the area of women and the law, and undergraduate students and general readers who are interested in the history of abortion rights.

Two of the editors of this text (N. E. Hull, Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers University, and Peter Charles Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia) have previously collaborated on a highly regarded history of ROE v. WADE that was reviewed in the LAW AND POLITICS BOOK REVIEW in 2002 (Hull and Hoffer 2001, see also McCall 2002).  The earlier book was written for a general audience, and was described by one reviewer as a “highly professional piece of history writing” featuring a “judiciously selected and generous array of information” (Tell 2002).  The new book features a new collaborator (Williamjames Hoffer, Assistant Professor of History at Seton Hall), and is geared toward a more academic audience, but it retains much of the balanced and objective writing style that is found in its predecessor.

The book is set out in a series of eight chapters that include selections from statutes, case law, briefs, newspaper and magazine articles, oral argument transcripts, and autobiographical accounts.  Each chapter features a selection of source materials that are preceded by brief introductory notes from the editors that provide a historical, political, or social context.  The opening chapter presents accounts of early efforts at criminalization of abortion at the state and federal level.  Subsequent chapters move through the progressive reforms of the birth control movement (Chapter 2), proposals for and revisions to the abortion codes of the states (Chapter 2), the emerging abortion rights movement of the 1960s and lower court arguments and briefs in ROE v. WADE (Chapter 3), edited transcripts of oral argument, conference deliberations, and the varied opinions of the Supreme Court justices in ROE v. WADE (Chapter 4).  From there, the chapters feature commentaries on ROE from John Hart Ely and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (before her appointment to the High Court), and a host of materials drawn from Roe’s progeny, particularly WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH [*6] SERVICES (1989) and PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY (1992).  The documentary treatment closes in Chapter 8 with materials surrounding the Supreme Court’s decisions in cases invoking the free speech claims of abortion clinic protestors, and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994.  The concluding chapter features an attempt to provide a “topical” re-cap of the issues confronted in the various edited selections found in the book.

There is much to like about this collection of materials.  First, general purpose and university libraries serving undergraduates will do well to place this book within their abortion collections, simply because of the scope of primary documents featured here, and the balanced representation of materials drawn from a variety of authors.  Selections come from a list of expected authors, including Margaret Sanger, Norman Thomas, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm and Cass Sunstein, among others.  It will be a useful source for students who are interested in the history of abortion in the U.S.  The book also features a bibliography of recommended readings that can direct serious students toward other important academic sources.  While the bibliography is generally comprehensive, the names of the publishers are oddly omitted from the bibliographic entries.

Some might criticize the editors for being too inclusive in their selection of “non-legal” materials for a “legal” reader.  For instance, the insertion of Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s “Address to the Seneca Falls Convention” as an opening piece is well and good (pp.14-15), but some might find its call for the elimination of inequality as somewhat remote from the primary topic of the book.  Yet there is no doubting that principles of equality undergird every discussion of reproductive rights, and thus, Stanton’s excerpt provides an early historical and social context to the entire debate.  In a similar vein, the editors include an address to the National Congress of Mothers in 1905 by Theodore Roosevelt that is famous for its claim that a society that artificially limits childbearing to two children or less is a society “that practice[s] race suicide” (p.42).  While the selection is not about abortion per se, its importance for the ensuing struggles for birth control and contraception reform seem obvious.  In my mind, the editors have done an admirable job selecting appropriate contextual documents that deviate somewhat from the purely “legal” notion of a legal reader.

Others might criticize the book for being heavy on social commentaries and light on social science perspectives on abortion.  For example, rather than selecting an excerpt from Barbara Hinkson Craig’s and David O’Brien’s (1993) excellent political science study of abortion politics, the editors chose to include excerpts from a review of that book that was published in the COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW.  Another prominent absence is the work of Gerald Rosenberg (1991) and what it says about the Supreme Court’s capacity to bring about social changes in the realm of abortion politics.  Still, this criticism must be tempered with the understanding that the editors set out to compile a legal history reader, and not a political science reader on the topic of abortion. [*7]

Scholars who teach undergraduates about the Supreme Court will appreciate some of the decisions made by the editors when it comes to editing briefs, arguments, and Court opinions.  Footnotes and citations are removed from materials for ease of reading.  Ellipses are inserted to demark areas where editing decisions have been made.  I have only one minor criticism to levy in this area.  The inclusion of oral arguments in ROE v. WADE is nice, but the editors have failed to denote adequately questions from the bench.  Instead of providing reference to the specific justice asking specific questions, all of the questions are designated as coming from “The Court” (pp.125-36).  This may seem a minor criticism, but sources are available to nail this down.  Jerry Goldman and the producers of the award winning OYEZ website have made the transcripts and recordings of the argument available online, and the transcripts there do feature the particular justices who asked the questions. Still, this is a minor quibble for a book that admirably achieves what its editors set out to do.  The book will serve as a useful supplement to a wide range of courses in legal history, gender studies and political science courses that focus on abortion policy, and it will be a useful reference book for many general-purpose libraries.

REFERENCES:

Craig, Barbara Hinkson, and David M. O’Brien.  1993.  ABORTION AND AMERICAN POLITICS.  Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

Hull, N. E. H., and Peter Charles Hoffer.  2001.  ROE V. WADE: THE ABORTION RIGHTS CONTROVERSY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.  Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.  Reviewed by Madhavi M. McCall.  Law & Politics Book Review Vol. 12 No. 1 (January 2002) pp. 55-57.

ROE v. WADE 410 US 113 (1973).  Oral arguments available online at: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/334/resources (January 3, 2005).

Rosenberg, Gerald N.  1991.  THE HOLLOW HOPE: CAN COURTS BRING ABOUT SOCIAL CHANGE?  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tell, David.  2003.  Planned Un-Parenthood: Roe v. Wade at Thirty.  THE WEEKLY STANDARD 8 (27 January 2003): 19.

CASE REFERENCES:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. CASEY, 505 US 833 (1992).

ROE v. WADE, 410 US 113 (1973).

WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, 492 US 490 (1989).

************************************************************

© Copyright 2005 by the author, Matt Wetstein.