RosenR., The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001).
2.
JensonJ., “Changing Discourse, Changing Agendas: Political Rights and Reproductive Policies in France,”Fainsod KatzensteinM.McClurg MuellerC., eds., in The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunities, and Public Policy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987): At Chap. 3, 64–88.
3.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A., “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment,”Annual Review of Sociology26 (2000): 611–639; HallS., “The Rediscovery of Ideology: Return to the Repressed in Media Studies,” in GurevitchM.BennettT.CuronJ.WoolcottJ., eds., Culture, Society and the Media (New York: Methuen, 1982): At 56–90.
4.
SiegelR., “Constitutional Culture, Social Movement Conflict and Constitutional Change: The Case of the De Facto ERA,”California Law Review1323, no. 94 (2006): 1350–1366.
5.
See BenfordSnow, supra note 3; see Hall, supra note 3.
6.
See BenfordSnow, supra note 3; see Hall, supra note 3; JasperJ. M., The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
7.
GreenhouseL.SiegelR. B., eds. Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate before the Supreme Court's Ruling (New York, NY: Kaplan Publishing, 2010); GarrowD. J., Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998).
8.
JoffeC., Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion before and after Roe V. Wade (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995).
9.
ConditC. M., Decoding Abortion Rhetoric: Communicating Social Change (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1990).
10.
AbramsP. L., “The Scarlet Letter: The Supreme Court and the Language of Abortion Stigma,”Michigan Journal of Gender & Law19, no. 293 (2013): 293–337.
WeitzT. A., “Producing and Mobilizing Science to Oppose Abortion Rights in the United States,”Western Humanities ReviewLXVI, no. 3 (Fall 2012): 103–117.
13.
SiegelR. B., “The Right's Reasons: Constitutional Conflict and the Spread of Woman-Protective Antiabortion Argument,”Duke Law Journal57 (2008): 1641–1692.
14.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 413F. Supreme Court no 05–380. 127 S.CT. 1610 2007.
15.
ManianM., “The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent and Abortion Decision-Making,”Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy16, no. 223 (2009): 223–292.
16.
KellyK., “The Spread of ‘Post Abortion Syndrome’ as Social Diagnosis,”Social Science & Medicine102 (2014): 18–25.
17.
WeitzT. A.TaylorD.DesaiS.UpadhyayU. D.WaldmanJ.BattistelliM. F.DreyE. A., “Safety of Aspiration Abortion Performed by Nurse Practitioners, Certified Nurse Midwives, and Physician Assistants under a California Legal Waiver,”American Journal of Public Health103, no. 3 (2013): 454–461; BartlettL. A.BergC. J.ShulmanH. B.ZaneS. B.GreenC. A.WhiteheadS.AtrashH. K., “Risk Factors for Legal Induced Abortion-Related Mortality in the United States,”Obstetrics and Gynecology103, no. 4 (Apr 2004): 729–737.
18.
JonesB. S.WeitzT. A., “Legal Barriers to Second-Trimester Abortion Provision and Public Health Consequences,”American Journal of Public Health99, no. 4 (April 2009): 623–630; JonesC., “With Abortion Clinics Closing, ‘People Are Really Desperate Now’ as Clinics Turn Women Away, Volunteer Abortion Funds Are Scrambling to Help Their Clients,”Texas Observer, November 5, 2013.
19.
PetcheskyR. P., Abortion and Women's Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990).
20.
RobertsonJ. A., Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).
21.
ThompsonC., Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005); RodinJ.CollinsAila, eds., Women and New Reproductive Technologies: Medical, Psychosocial, Legal, and Ethical Dilemmas (Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum, 1991); SparD. L., The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception (Cambridge: Harvard Business Press, 2013).
22.
GinsburgF.RappR., eds., Conceiving the New World Order (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); RobertsD., Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997); SolingerR., Pregnancy and Power: A Short History of Reproductive Politics in America (New York: New York University Press, 2005); CollinsP. H., Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (New York: Routledge, 1990); GoodwinM., “Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Double-Bind: The Illusory Choice of Motherhood,”Journal of Gender, Race and Justice9, no. 1 (2005): 1–54.
23.
RothmanB. K., Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in a Patriarchal Society (New York: Norton, 1989); RothmanB. K., “Ideology and Technology: The Social Context of Procreative Technology,”Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine65, no. 3 (May 1998): 201–209; CoreaG.KleinR.HanmerJ.HolmesB.HoskinsB.KishwarM.RaymondJ.RowlandR.SteinbacherR., Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987); ArdittieR.KleinR.MindenS., Test Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? (London: Pandora Press, Routledge, Kegan and Paul Ltd.1984): At 189; Engineering, Feminist International Network of Resistence to Reproduction and Genetic. “Resolution of the First European Conference of Finrrage (Sweden),”available at <http://www.finrrage.org/pdf_files/Conference%20Reports/Finrrage_European_Conf_Reso.pdf> (last visited April 10, 2015).
24.
BaileyA., “Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy,”Hypatia-a Journal of Feminist Philosophy26, no. 4 (Fal 2011): 715–741; DanielsC. R.Heidt-ForsytheE., “Gendered Eugenics and the Problematic of Free Market Reproductive Technologies: Sperm and Egg Donation in the United States,”Signs37, no. 3 (Spring 2012): 719–747; RobertsD., “Race, Gender, and Genetic Technologies: A New Reproductive Dystopia,”Signs34, no. 4 (2009): 783–804; RobertsD., “Privatization and Punishment in the New Age of Reprogenetics,”Emory Law Journal54, no. 1343 (2005): 1343–1360; MamoL., Queering Reproduction: Achieving Pregnancy in the Age of Technoscience (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007); AlmelingR., Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); GoodwinM., ed., Baby Markets: Money and the New Politics of Creating Families (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
25.
RaymondJ. G., Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women's Freedom (San Francisco: Harper, 1993); CoeytauxF.DarnovskyM.Berke FogelS., “Assisted Reproduction and Choice in the Biotech Age: Recommendations for a Way Forward (Editorial),”Contraception83, no. 1 (2011): 1–4; GeorgeK., “Women as Collateral Damage: A Critique of Egg Harvesting for Cloning Research,”Women's Studies International Forum31, no. 4 (2008): 285–292.
26.
DarnovskyM., “The Baby Business: A Fairy Tale?” in Biopolitical Times (Berkeley, California: Center for Genetics and Society, 2011).
27.
See Spar, supra note 21; Goodwin, supra note 22; MundyL., Everything Conceivable: How Assisted Reproduction Is Changing Our World (New York: Random House, 2008); KalbianA., “Considering the Risks to Economically Disadvantaged Egg Donors,”American Jornal of Bioethics11, no. 9 (2011): 44–45.
28.
BeesonD., “Dangerous Harvest,”GeneWatch23, no. 5 (2010) available at <http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=312&archive=yes>; BeesonD.LippmanA., “Egg Harvesting for Stem Cell Research: Medical Risks and Ethical Problems,”Reproductive BioMedicine Online13, no. 4 (2006): 573–579; SauerM. V., “Should Egg Donors Be Paid? Exploitation or a Woman's Right?”BMJ314, no. 7091 (May 10 1997): 1400–1403; SauerM. V., “Egg Donor Solicitation: Problems Exist, but Do Abuses?”American Journal of Bioethics1, no. 4 (Fall 2001): 1–2; NorsigianJ, “Egg Donation for Ivf and Stem Cell Research: Time to Weigh the Risks to Women's Health,” in Different Takes, edited by A Publication of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College (Hampshire College, 2005).
29.
FillmoreC., “Frame Semantics,” in Linguistics in the Morning Calm (Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co., 1982): At 111–137; TannenD., “What's in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations,” in FreedleR., ed., New Directions in Discourse Processing (Norwood: Ablex, 1979): 137–181; PetruckM., “Frame Semantics,” in ÖstmanJ.-O.VerschuerenJ.BlommaertJ., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1996).
DanovskyM.CoeytauxF.BeesonD.StevensT.NorsigianJ.IkemotoL.GruberJ.AnnasG.PearsonC.CoolR.FalterS.NewmanA.SchneiderJ.ParisianS., “Co-Signed Letter to Assemblywoman Bonillla opposing AB926,”available at <http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/downloads/Bonilla_CGS_4_5_13.pdf> (last viewed April 10, 2015) (emphasis added).
RosenR., The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America (New York: Penguin Books, 2001).
66.
Boston Women's Health Book Collective, Our Bodies, Ourselves: A Book by and for Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971).
67.
JoffeC. E.WeitzT. A.StaceyC. L.“Uneasy Allies: Pro-Choice Physicians, Feminist Health Activists and the Struggle for Abortion Rights,”Sociology of Health & Illness26, no. 6 (2004): 775–796.