Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose-This paper examines the impact of the United States (US) welfare reform family-cap policy on the childbearing decisions of poor and low-income women by posing two complementary questions, both placed within a broader historical context. Specifically, it raises an empirical question pertaining to the family cap's effectiveness and a social justice question pertaining to the policy's ethical and legal justification in terms of human and reproductive rights.Methods-In order to address the first question, a thorough review of past and current research pertaining to the family cap at both the state and national level is provided. The second question is addressed with an overview of international human and reproductive rights documents of relevance to the family-cap policy, as well as an analysis of the covenants' numerous components with which the family cap is in conflict. Finally, this paper situates the family cap in its historical context by investigating previous governmental attempts to control and regulate the reproductive health and rights of poor women and women of color in the US.Main findings-The majority of empirical analyses of the family cap have found that the policy has not had an impact on poor women's reproductive health behaviors. In addition, the exclusive application of this policy to poor women receiving cash assistance is demonstrated to be in violation of 8 international human and reproductive rights documents, several of which the US is a signatory.Conclusion-These two findings make a strong case that policymakers and social and health researchers alike critically re-examine whether a policy that has not achieved its ostensible goal and is applied in a disparate manner-primarily to poor women and families, and women of color -should continue to be implemented by the states.
Purpose-This paper examines the impact of the United States (US) welfare reform family-cap policy on the childbearing decisions of poor and low-income women by posing two complementary questions, both placed within a broader historical context. Specifically, it raises an empirical question pertaining to the family cap's effectiveness and a social justice question pertaining to the policy's ethical and legal justification in terms of human and reproductive rights.Methods-In order to address the first question, a thorough review of past and current research pertaining to the family cap at both the state and national level is provided. The second question is addressed with an overview of international human and reproductive rights documents of relevance to the family-cap policy, as well as an analysis of the covenants' numerous components with which the family cap is in conflict. Finally, this paper situates the family cap in its historical context by investigating previous governmental attempts to control and regulate the reproductive health and rights of poor women and women of color in the US.Main findings-The majority of empirical analyses of the family cap have found that the policy has not had an impact on poor women's reproductive health behaviors. In addition, the exclusive application of this policy to poor women receiving cash assistance is demonstrated to be in violation of 8 international human and reproductive rights documents, several of which the US is a signatory.Conclusion-These two findings make a strong case that policymakers and social and health researchers alike critically re-examine whether a policy that has not achieved its ostensible goal and is applied in a disparate manner-primarily to poor women and families, and women of color -should continue to be implemented by the states.
This book is an eye-opening account of transnational advocacy, not by environmental and rights groups, but by conservative activists. Mobilizing around diverse issues, these networks challenge progressive foes across borders and within institutions. In these globalized battles, opponents struggle as much to advance their own causes as to destroy their rivals. Deploying exclusionary strategies, negative tactics and dissuasive ideas, they aim both to make and unmake policy. In this work, Clifford Bob chronicles combat over homosexuality and gun control in the UN, the Americas, Europe and elsewhere. He investigates the 'Baptist-burqa' network of conservative believers attacking gay rights, and the global gun coalition blasting efforts to control firearms. Bob draws critical conclusions about norms, activists and institutions, and his broad findings extend beyond the culture wars. They will change how campaigners fight, scholars study policy wars, and all of us think about global politics.
Human rights transformed international politics beginning in the 1970s. This transformation was rooted in a dialectical relationship between international and domestic human rights institutions and movements. This article explores how we can use social movements, law, and politics to demonstrate the way international human rights norms were received, interpreted, and applied domestically and how this affected states’ participation in international politics. The focus is on Canada, which was profoundly influenced by international human rights norms and in turn contributed to transforming international politics. These developments were especially pronounced in the 1970s.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.