Beyond the Tram Lines: Disability Discrimination, Reproductive Rights and Anachronistic Abortion Law

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Sally Sheldon
{"title":"Beyond the Tram Lines: Disability Discrimination, Reproductive Rights and Anachronistic Abortion Law","authors":"Sally Sheldon","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqad025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article takes as its starting point the recent case of Crowter, which challenged the law permitting provision of abortion on the grounds of fetal anomaly. It begins by briefly locating the case within a longer ‘biography’ of the Abortion Act 1967, casting important light on the issue raised within it. It then focuses in detail on the claims made in Crowter, exploring how important moral, social and political concerns with disability discrimination were refracted through an anti-abortion lens as they were translated into legal argument. As a result, the legal remedies sought were simultaneously disproportionate and insufficient to address the harms described. Whilst agreeing that the Abortion Act reflects anachronistic and discriminatory understandings of disability and is overdue reform, the article argues that a response that fully reflects modern ethical values will require more radical change than envisaged in Crowter, and that this must refuse an opposition between the rights of pregnant and disabled people.","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article takes as its starting point the recent case of Crowter, which challenged the law permitting provision of abortion on the grounds of fetal anomaly. It begins by briefly locating the case within a longer ‘biography’ of the Abortion Act 1967, casting important light on the issue raised within it. It then focuses in detail on the claims made in Crowter, exploring how important moral, social and political concerns with disability discrimination were refracted through an anti-abortion lens as they were translated into legal argument. As a result, the legal remedies sought were simultaneously disproportionate and insufficient to address the harms described. Whilst agreeing that the Abortion Act reflects anachronistic and discriminatory understandings of disability and is overdue reform, the article argues that a response that fully reflects modern ethical values will require more radical change than envisaged in Crowter, and that this must refuse an opposition between the rights of pregnant and disabled people.
电车之外:残疾歧视,生育权利和不合时宜的堕胎法
本文以最近的克劳特案为出发点,该案件挑战了允许以胎儿异常为由提供堕胎的法律。它首先在1967年《堕胎法》的长篇“传记”中简要地定位了这个案例,对其中提出的问题进行了重要的阐述。然后,它详细地关注了克劳特案的主张,探讨了残疾人歧视的道德、社会和政治问题在转化为法律论据时,是如何通过反堕胎的镜头折射出来的。因此,所寻求的法律补救办法既不成比例,又不足以解决所述的危害。虽然同意《堕胎法》反映了对残疾的不合时宜和歧视性的理解,是一项姗姗来迟的改革,但文章认为,全面反映现代伦理价值观的回应将需要比克劳特所设想的更彻底的改变,这必须拒绝孕妇和残疾人权利之间的对立。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信