Dana Goldstein

Dana Goldstein, a former associate editor and writer at the Prospect, comes from a family of public school educators. She received the Spencer Fellowship in Education Journalism, a Schwarz Fellowship at the New America Foundation, and a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellowship at the Nation Institute. Her journalism is regularly featured in SlateThe AtlanticThe NationThe Daily Beast, and other publications, and she is a staff writer at the Marshall Project. 

Recent Articles


MAYDAY. I just returned from Taft Park outside the U.S. Capitol, where several hundred protesters gathered to support progressive immigration reform. Although mobilizations took place nationwide today , the D.C. event focused on the Asian and Pacific Islander community and featured boisterous traditional Korean drumming in addition to the rallying cries that resonated during nationwide street protests last year: "Families united!" and "Si, se puede!" ("Together we can!"). Most immediately, activists are pressing Congress to pass the DREAM and STRIVE acts, which together would give over 12 million undocumented immigrants a path toward permanent residency and citizenship. DREAM would help 65,000 undocumented high school students fund their college educations by making them eligible for loans, scholarships, and in-state tuition at public colleges. STRIVE is a broad response to President Bush's immigration proposal. Instead of creating an underclass of "guest workers" with no hope for...


THE CW ON INFANT MORTALITY. It�s well known that the United States has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world (about 6 per 1,000 births). Progressive health care wonks have long suspected that sub par Medicaid coverage for pregnant women and cuts to programs like the State Children�s Health Insurance Program are culprits. Last month, the counter-CW folks over at Slate announced that actually, babies die because wealthy American spend a lot of money on fertility drugs, prenatal care, and other newfangled treatments that save otherwise unviable pregnancies and lead to increased rates of prematurity and infant mortality. As Scott pointed out , yesterday a must-read article on infant mortality in the South appeared in The New York Times . On this issue, at least, it seems counter-intuition will only take us so far: American infant mortality is very much a byproduct of poverty, with all the usual disturbing implications for race and gender. In Mississippi, the...


THE FINE PRINT. Over at Feministing , Ann helpfully linked to Cynthia Gorney �s old Harper �s article on the politics of the SCOTUS-approved ban against dilation and extraction abortions. The article helps to clarify a few questions asked in comments here and elsewhere about yesterday's decision: Yesterday�s Gonzales v. Carhart ruling contains a provision protecting the life of the mother, but not her health . According to Doe v. Bolton , the little-known case decided on the same day as Roe , women�s "health" must be protected under any abortion ban after fetal viability. "Health" was defined as "all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." The Supreme Court eviscerated that precedent yesterday. Dilation and Extraction -- re-dubbed "partial-birth abortion" by anti-choicers -- does not equal "late term abortion." It is a procedure by which the fetus is removed intact from the womb instead of in pieces...


CHANGE THE SUBJECT, ALREADY . The Supreme Court made the historical (and very scary) decision this morning to uphold the Bush Administration 2003 �partial-birth� abortion ban, which affects certain abortion procedures as early as the 12th week of pregnancy and contains no exception at all for women�s health. This limiting of abortion rights is clearly unconstitutional as defined by Roe and Casey . I�ve been watching CNN all day and so far, it�s all Virginia Tech, all the time. Not even a mention of the Court�s decision. -- Dana Goldstein


THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT. As part of my day job at Campus Progress , I just heard a presentation from the Harvard Institute of Politics detailing the results of their most recent survey of 18 to 24-year olds. There was lots of encouraging news: Today�s young people are more likely than any other generation since the Vietnam era to vote and engage with politics, but are under-counted because exit polls tend to ignore campus polling places. On foreign policy, 75 percent of 18 to 24 year olds believe the United Nations, not the U.S., should take the lead in responding to international conflicts. And young people are positive about the cultural effects of globalization, but are more skeptical about its economic and environmental outcomes. Here are some other highlights from the survey: Young Democrats are more independent of their elders than young Republicans are. Like their older counterparts, 18-24 year old Republicans prefer Rudy Giuliani as the next president. But while older Democrats...