A Miscarriage of Justice

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Alison Gash
{"title":"A Miscarriage of Justice","authors":"Alison Gash","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2022.2119338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, dismantling five decades of reproductive choice established in Roe v. Wade, will have a chilling, and likely tragic, impact on women’s capacity to control their own bodies and their reproductive destinies. It may also unleash an array of policy attacks or private strikes against already vulnerable publics, outside of the context of abortion. Alito’s majority opinion and Thomas’s concurrence have placed a target on the backs of vulnerable communities by removing the glue that connected a range of protections and then explicitly calling for more carnage. Their decisions also reveal a troubling disregard for fact, science and reason.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"44 1","pages":"500 - 505"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2119338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, dismantling five decades of reproductive choice established in Roe v. Wade, will have a chilling, and likely tragic, impact on women’s capacity to control their own bodies and their reproductive destinies. It may also unleash an array of policy attacks or private strikes against already vulnerable publics, outside of the context of abortion. Alito’s majority opinion and Thomas’s concurrence have placed a target on the backs of vulnerable communities by removing the glue that connected a range of protections and then explicitly calling for more carnage. Their decisions also reveal a troubling disregard for fact, science and reason.
误判
摘要最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中的裁决,废除了罗诉韦德案中确立的50年的生育选择,将对女性控制自己身体和生育命运的能力产生令人不寒而栗的、可能是悲剧性的影响。它还可能在堕胎之外,对本已脆弱的公众发动一系列政策攻击或私人罢工。Alito的多数意见和Thomas的赞同,通过去除连接一系列保护措施的粘合剂,然后明确呼吁更多的屠杀,将目标放在了弱势社区的背上。他们的决定也显示出令人不安的对事实、科学和理性的漠视。
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
New Political Science
New Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
53
×
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