The Abortion Privilege: What Power Looks Like in the Aftermath of A Landmark Abortion Case Overturned

Haoyun Yang
{"title":"The Abortion Privilege: What Power Looks Like in the Aftermath of A Landmark Abortion Case Overturned","authors":"Haoyun Yang","doi":"10.61173/9yt38z57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nOn June 24, 2022, one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade, landed in a ruling to overturn individual protections for abortion after five decades of legality. The decision, symbolizing not only reproductive freedom, reshaped America’s social, cultural, and economic landscapes. While scholars long studied variables influencing abortion attitudes in public polling data, few paid attention to rooting people’s attitudes in associated risks and imagined consequences of abortion overturned. The study used quantitative data from a demographic, attitudinal survey, and qualitative data from in-depth interviews to unpack the dense aftermath of the overturning of abortion rights on four levels: the individual, relational, societal, and cultural levels. Whereas gendered childcare, bodily autonomy, and the disenfranchisement of economic and symbolic power drove the discussions at the individual and relational levels, apprehension in the feminist agenda, political polarization, and socioeconomic status reflected public insecurities on the societal and cultural levels. This work conceptualized the profound social ramifications of abortion overturned by understanding people’s perceived social risks on different levels of impact, pointing out new productions of inequalities in this process.\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":373664,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61173/9yt38z57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On June 24, 2022, one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases, Roe v. Wade, landed in a ruling to overturn individual protections for abortion after five decades of legality. The decision, symbolizing not only reproductive freedom, reshaped America’s social, cultural, and economic landscapes. While scholars long studied variables influencing abortion attitudes in public polling data, few paid attention to rooting people’s attitudes in associated risks and imagined consequences of abortion overturned. The study used quantitative data from a demographic, attitudinal survey, and qualitative data from in-depth interviews to unpack the dense aftermath of the overturning of abortion rights on four levels: the individual, relational, societal, and cultural levels. Whereas gendered childcare, bodily autonomy, and the disenfranchisement of economic and symbolic power drove the discussions at the individual and relational levels, apprehension in the feminist agenda, political polarization, and socioeconomic status reflected public insecurities on the societal and cultural levels. This work conceptualized the profound social ramifications of abortion overturned by understanding people’s perceived social risks on different levels of impact, pointing out new productions of inequalities in this process.
堕胎特权:在一个具有里程碑意义的堕胎案件被推翻后,权力是什么样子的
2022年6月24日,最高法院最有争议的案件之一罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)做出裁决,推翻了50年来对堕胎的个人保护。这一决定不仅象征着生育自由,还重塑了美国的社会、文化和经济格局。长期以来,学者们一直在研究公共民意调查数据中影响堕胎态度的变量,但很少有人关注将人们的态度根植于堕胎的相关风险和想象的后果中。该研究使用了来自人口统计、态度调查的定量数据,以及来自深度访谈的定性数据,从个人、关系、社会和文化四个层面揭示了推翻堕胎权的密集后果。性别育儿、身体自主权、经济和象征权力的剥夺推动了个人和关系层面的讨论,而对女权主义议程的担忧、政治两极分化和社会经济地位反映了社会和文化层面的公众不安全感。这项工作通过理解人们对不同程度影响的社会风险的感知,将堕胎的深刻社会后果概念化,指出了这一过程中不平等的新产物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信