ABSTRACT
Cote Hampson discusses the ways in which Cramer and McNulty’s pieces are linked to her own article in terms of their focus on the law’s failure to live up to its promises. She highlights the tensions raised in each piece between seeking cultural versus legal remedies to social inequities, and argues that critical scholarship may offer one of the best “solutions” to the problems posed by the law’s limits.
This is a reply to:
Cramer, R.A. 2018. “The Limits of Law in Securing Reproductive Freedoms: Midwife-Assisted Homebirth in the United States.” Global Discourse. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2018.1521122">10.1080/23269995.2018.1521122.
and
McNulty, S. 2018. “Embedded Exclusions: Exploring Gender Equality in Peru’s Participatory Democratic Framework.” Global Discourse. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2018.1521137">10.1080/23269995.2018.1521137.
