Book Reviews
| Author | Roy Coleman |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663903012004008 |
| Subject Matter | Reviews |
556
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 12(4)
important in relation to prospective influence on policy, as Latham suggests at other
points.
I have some reservations about the distinction between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.
There is surely always the possibility that feminists were to be found in those groups
identified as insiders, so that they had influence – i.e. as members of the medical pro-
fession and policy network members – but they were less likely to have influence in
the religious groups and the pronatalist lobby. My second reservation is about
Latham’s claim that it was the lack of a second-wave radical feminist input to contra-
ceptive campaigns that ensured that religious groups, pronatalists and the medical
profession were able to shape the content of the laws of 1967. This occurred, (Latham
argues), ‘to the detriment of a clearer definition of women’s rights’ (p. 81). While
Latham is probably correct in her assertion here, I feel her explanation is a little over-
simplistic. It might have been useful to incorporate some discussion of how and why
the radical feminist position came to be placed ‘outside’ the influential policy com-
munity. Further, she might have addressed the more theoretical point that establish-
ing a clear definition of women’s rights would have been difficult because of the
problematic nature of rights discourse in the realm of reproduction.
Latham goes on to discuss the roles of the various policy shapers in abortion law
and assisted conception law and explores their influence in each context. In the book’s
conclusion, Latham poses the question as to why feminist influence was limited. Her
answer is to suggest that the strength of the feminist movement, was generally con-
strained by the effects of disunity brought about by post-1968 radicalism. However,
the extent to which disunity between feminists should be seen as weakening femin-
ism as a political movement is, in my opinion, questionable. Latham acknowledges
this herself, somewhat belatedly in the penultimate page of the book, through the
work of Van Dyk (1995). To some extent this concession weakens Latham’s argument
that is central to the book. Latham flags up the book’s weaknesses early on in the text.
These she identifies as ethical...
SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 12(4)
important in relation to prospective influence on policy, as Latham suggests at other
points.
I have some reservations about the distinction between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’.
There is surely always the possibility that feminists were to be found in those groups
identified as insiders, so that they had influence – i.e. as members of the medical pro-
fession and policy network members – but they were less likely to have influence in
the religious groups and the pronatalist lobby. My second reservation is about
Latham’s claim that it was the lack of a second-wave radical feminist input to contra-
ceptive campaigns that ensured that religious groups, pronatalists and the medical
profession were able to shape the content of the laws of 1967. This occurred, (Latham
argues), ‘to the detriment of a clearer definition of women’s rights’ (p. 81). While
Latham is probably correct in her assertion here, I feel her explanation is a little over-
simplistic. It might have been useful to incorporate some discussion of how and why
the radical feminist position came to be placed ‘outside’ the influential policy com-
munity. Further, she might have addressed the more theoretical point that establish-
ing a clear definition of women’s rights would have been difficult because of the
problematic nature of rights discourse in the realm of reproduction.
Latham goes on to discuss the roles of the various policy shapers in abortion law
and assisted conception law and explores their influence in each context. In the book’s
conclusion, Latham poses the question as to why feminist influence was limited. Her
answer is to suggest that the strength of the feminist movement, was generally con-
strained by the effects of disunity brought about by post-1968 radicalism. However,
the extent to which disunity between feminists should be seen as weakening femin-
ism as a political movement is, in my opinion, questionable. Latham acknowledges
this herself, somewhat belatedly in the penultimate page of the book, through the
work of Van Dyk (1995). To some extent this concession weakens Latham’s argument
that is central to the book. Latham flags up the book’s weaknesses early on in the text.
These she identifies as ethical...
To continue reading
Request your trial