Martha A. Field

Controlling the Woman to Protect the Fetus

Even many women who view reproductive capabilities not as a detriment but as an important source of joy in their lives recognize that women’s reproductive capabilities have long been used to oppress them. The ability to reproduce has been an important factor in women’s loss of control over their own lives, contributing to their being controlled by chance, by government, and by other people-husbands, boyfriends, parents. In the past, to the extent that reproduction has not been left to chance, the woman herself has often not been the decision-maker. Husbands have often coerced women into producing and raising offspring when they did not want to, and societal attitudes have had the same effect of encouraging marriage, then motherhood. Historically, state governments have participated in coercing childbirth as well, some by prohibiting or restricting birth control and all states by prohibiting abortion. Technological developments concerning contraception and abortion have now made it possible to exercise much greater control and even for the mother to have actual decision-making power over reproduction. ’ And during the past two decades women to a greater extent than ever before have in fact acquired a legal right to make the decision whether or not to have children. The Supreme Court has invalidated restrictions on access to birth control-for single persons and minors as well as married persons.2 It also has invalidated state laws criminalizing abortion and has upheld the woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue her pregnancy.3 The current movement which is the subject of this paper seeks to use pregnancy against women in a different way-to control the behavior of the woman while pregnant. The rationales behind such regulation could moreover support controlling behavior before pregnancy as well-amounting in effect to an argument for controlling women generally as future childbearers.

The Differing Federalisms of Canada and the United States

There are some remarkable differences in the ways that Canada and the United States have structured their federalisms-differences that teach us not only about the two systems involved but also about the possibilities of federalism generally. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of this subject for the reader who is new to it. It will compare the role of the provinces and the role of the states in the federal schemes of Canada and the United States and will survey three main subjects:

Problems of Proof in Conscientious Objector Cases

On September 28, 1971, Congress extended the draft for two years 1 and made a number of changes in the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.2 Although provisions relating specifically to conscientious objectors were largely unaltered,3 procedural rights granted all registrants will have an effect on the problems of proof and factfinding that have long vexed the determination of conscientious objector claims. The most important of these procedural reforms is a requirement that