US fertility prevention as poverty prevention: an empirical question and social justice issue.
US fertility prevention as poverty prevention: an empirical question and social justice issue.
复制标题
美国预防生育即预防贫困：一个实证问题和社会正义问题。
DOI：
10.1016/j.whi.2009.08.004
复制
发表时间：
2009-11
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Agenor, Madina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Romero, Diana;Agenor, Madina
本文探讨了美国（US）的福利改革家庭上限政策对贫困和低收入妇女的生育决定的影响，提出了两个互补的问题，都放在一个更广泛的历史背景下。具体而言，它提出了一个关于家庭上限有效性的经验问题和一个关于该政策在人权和生殖权利方面的道德和法律的理由的社会正义问题。为了解决第一个问题，本文对州和国家层面有关家庭上限的过去和当前研究进行了彻底回顾。第二个问题是通过概述与家庭上限政策有关的国际人权和生殖权利文件，以及分析与家庭上限相冲突的公约的许多组成部分来解决的。最后，本文将家庭帽置于其历史背景下，通过调查以前的政府试图控制和调节生殖健康和权利的贫困妇女和妇女的颜色在美国。大多数对家庭上限的实证分析发现，该政策并没有对贫困妇女的生殖健康行为产生影响。此外，这项政策只适用于接受现金援助的贫穷妇女，这违反了8项国际人权和生殖权利文书，美国是其中几项文书的签署国。这两项发现有力地证明，政策制定者和社会及健康研究人员都应该批判性地重新审视一项政策，如果这项政策没有实现其表面目标，并且以不同的方式适用于贫困妇女和家庭，以及有色人种妇女，那么各州是否应该继续实施这项政策。
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. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Camasso, MJ;Jagannathan, R;Killingsworth, M
通讯作者：
Killingsworth, M
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
Camasso, MJ
通讯作者：
Camasso, MJ
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
KINGDOM, E
通讯作者：
KINGDOM, E
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Dyer, WT;Fairlie, RW
通讯作者：
Fairlie, RW