Reviews in Medical Ethics

Butler S. , Erewhon Revisited in The Works of Samuel Butler vol. 16 (New York: AMS Press, 1968): 128–140, at132.

Washington v. Glucksberg 138 L Ed 2d 772 at 781 (1997) per Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Williams G. , The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (London: Faber & Faber, 1958): At 141. This influential book was an expanded version of the Carpentier lectures Williams delivered in 1956 at Columbia Law School.

Dickens B. , Abortion and the Law (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1966): 20.

Brief of 281 American Historians as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 492 U.S. 490 (1989).

Mohr J. C. , Abortion in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978). This was, until now, the leading book on the 19th century anti-abortion legislation.

See Brief , supra note 5, at 4–8.

Id., at 11–16, 25–28.

Id., at 5–10.

Dworkin R. , “The Great Abortion Case,” New York Review of Books, vol. 36, no. 13 (1989): 49–53, at 50.

Dellapenna J. W. , Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History (Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2006).

Id., at 18.

Id., at ix-x.

Id., at 234.

Id., at 216.

Id., at 684.

Id., at 295.

Id., at 313.

See Mohr , supra note 6, at 216.

Id., at 166.

Id., at 230.

Commenting on the 19th-century U.S. legislation, Williams accepted that it was “passed for the protection of the unborn child and not as a form of control of unregistered medical practitioners.” See Williams , supra note 3, at 176.

See Dellapenna , supra note 11, at 334.

Id., at 341.

Id., at 548.

Id., at 1063.

Id., at 461.

Id., at 374–375.

Id., at 388.

Grisez G. G. , Abortion: The Myths, the Realities and the Arguments (New York: Corpus Books, 1970).

Means helped draft the Historians' Brief, and Mohr was a lead signatory. Mohr later denied that the Brief was “history” and said it was a “political” document. Mohr J. C. , “Historically Based Legal Briefs: Observations of a Participant in the Webster Process,” Public Historian 12, no. 3 (1990): At 20, 25. However, the Brief claimed to represent historical fact, and those who signed it put their reputations as historians behind it. For a critique of the Brief, see Keown J. , “Back to the Future of Abortion Law: Roe's Rejection of America's History and Traditions,” Issues in Law & Medicine 22, no. 1 (2006): 3–37.

See Dellapenna , supra note 11, at 640.

Id., at 553.

Id., at 956.

Id., at 958.

Id., at 786.

Id., at 1087.

Id., at 677.

Id., at 18, note 86.

Keown J. , Abortion, Doctors and the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988): At 11.

Finnis J. , “‘Shameless Acts’ in Colorado: Abuse of Scholarship in Constitutional Cases” Academic Questions 7, no. 4 (1994): 10–41, at 10.