Few issues in modern America—indeed throughout the Western world— have proved as divisive, bitter, and intractable as that of abortion. Hardly anyone is without an opinion on the subject, and these views are frequently held and advanced with passion. While never perceived by the majority as the single most important issue before the public, the abortion issue has not gone away but rather remains, like a nagging toothache, as a continued source of pain and anger. Nor is it likely to subside in the future. Not only do the parties to the current dispute show no signs of ceasing their efforts, there is reason to believe that the issues and principles involved in the dispute are likely to reappear in other forms.

All social inquiry, history included, is both theoretical and comparative. This does not mean the analyst is self-conscious about either the theoretical approach or the comparative methods. But it does imply that there is no escaping a theoretical orientation—the concepts employed, the logic of explanation, the descriptive lens of characterization—and no alternative but to make comparisons over time, over space, or across topics. Both A Political Economy of Medicine by J. Rogers Hollingsworth and Health Policies, Health Politics by Daniel Fox raise questions about how one ought to undertake policy history and the comparison of national systems of medical care.