Chemerinsky, Erwin, and Michele Goodwin. “Constitutional Gerrymandering against Abortion Rights: Nifla V. Becerra.” New York University Law Review, vol. 94, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-124.
This article, published by two professors of law, discusses abortion rights as they pertain to informing women about contraception and abortion. The article’s main point, illustrated by recent cases, is that the conservative Supreme Court will likely continue to infringe upon abortion rights using very broad interpretations of the Constitution. It may be useful in the paper because the authors quote important statistics regarding abortion to support their point. The source’s strength is in using statistical data to reinforce its point, but the author’s clear bias in favor of abortion rights may be considered a weakness.
Erdman, Joann an. “Theorizing Time in Abortion Law and Human Rights.” Health and Human Rights Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29-40.
This article by a specialist in health law and policy discusses the issue of abortion from health and justice perspectives. The author argues that specific terms for allowing or forbidding abortion are largely arbitrary, and the main concern should be caring for the health and rights of women rather than imposing any rigid standard. The article analyzes numerous examples of legal temporal restrictions to stringy support its point, but its weakness is that it does not advise on specific ways of addressing pregnant women’s rights and health. It would be best used to provide information on how abortion laws view health risks.
Jones, Rachel K., and Jenna Jerman. “Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014.” The American Journal of Public Health, vol. 107, no. 12, 2017, pp. 1904-1909.
This article by two researchers from the Guttmacher Institute, a leading abortion advocacy organization, covers the rates of abortion in the United States. The authors’ method was cross-referencing several databases, and their conclusion is that there is an evident but not uniform decline in abortion rates. The wealth of statistical information is the source’s main strength and also the best way to use it in the paper. Its main weakness is rhetorical because the authors’ affiliation indicates a bias in favor of abortion.
Rebouche, Rachel. “Abortion Rights as Human Rights.” Social & Legal Studies, vol. 25, no. 6, 2016, pp. 765-782.
This article by a lawyer from Temple University argues that a human rights perspective may minimize the legal challenges of implementing abortion rights. It supports this main point by discussing how the increasing prominence of the human rights perspective weakens institutional barriers against abortion rights. It would be best used to illustrate the argument in favor of abortion rights based on the [regnant women’s right to health, which is its major strength.
Thomson, Judith J. “A Defense of Abortion.”University of Colorado, Web.
This article, written by a prominent feminist thinker for everybody interested in the subject, debunks philosophical arguments against abortion. By using robust thought experiments, which constitute its major strength, the article proves that arguments against abortion based on the fetus’s right to live do not stand up to criticism. It is best used according to its strengths to illustrate mainstream logical arguments for and against abortion, and its only weakness is that it is relatively old, but its logic does not really age.
Annotated Bibliography #1: Children’s Dependence on Technology
Hadlington, Lee, et al. “I Cannot Live Without My [Tablet]: Children’s Experiences of Using Tablet Technology Within the Home.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 94, 2019, pp. 19-24.
This article written by several professional psychologists discusses the symptoms and effects of digital technology addiction on children. Its main point is that the unregulated use of digital devices may become problematic and lead to addiction development. The article’s strength lies in the authors’ empirical study identifying the main reasons for developing tablet addiction, and it is best used accordingly. Its weakness, though, is being largely limited to tablets and not considering other devices.
Konca, Ahmet. “Digital Technology Usage of Young Children: Screen Time and Families.” Early Childhood Education Journal, 2021.
This article by a specialist in elementary education analyzes the use of digital devices by children between 3 and 6 years. Based on the author’s field study, it concludes that the use of television, smartphones, and tablets is very prominent, although moderated by income and familial relations. The source’s main strength is its empirical foundation, and it can be used to provide data on children’s screen time with digital devices. The source’s weakness is a relatively modest sample limiting its usefulness.
Miller, Carolina. “Is Internet Addiction Real?”Child Mind Institute, Web.
This article from a resource specializing in children’s mental health discusses the prominence of internet addiction in children. It acknowledges that such an addiction exists but argues that a child needs to demonstrate extreme behavior to be diagnosed with it. It is best used as a cautionary reminder not to overestimate the dangers of technology addiction. However, the weakness of this source is that it only covers Internet addiction specifically, while the children’s use of digital devices is not limited to using the Web.
Rhodes, Anthea. “Screen Time and Kids: What’s Happening in our Homes?” The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, 2017, Web.
This report, prepared by the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, covers the impact of digital technology on children’s health. Its main point is that children’s use of digital devices is both prominent and largely unregulated. It can be used to illustrate how parents neglect the suggested pediatric limitation on the use of digital devices, thus potentially harming their kids. The report’s strength lies in combining information on digital device use and pediatric recommendations, but it is brief and does not provide exhaustive data.
Rideout, Victoria, and Michael Robb. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age Zero to Eight. Common Sense Media, 2020.
This report by a child development organization covers children’s use of digital technology and parents’ perception thereof. Its main point digital technology may supplement the children’s learning effectively but also requires attentive parental control. The source’s main strength is the wealth of data on how children use digital technology and how dependency on it may affect their development, and its best use in the paper is to cover this topic. The source’s weakness is that its data comes from 2011-2017 and may not be entirely up-to-date.