{"title":"多布斯之后的反堕胎例外论","authors":"Elizabeth Sepper","doi":"10.1017/jme.2023.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The end of the constitutional right to abortion with <span>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health</span> stands to generate massive conflict between abortion regulation and the First Amendment. Abortion exceptionalism within constitutional doctrine -- which both treats abortion differently than other areas and favors anti-abortion over pro-choice viewpoints -- will not retreat but advance, unless confronted by the courts.</p>","PeriodicalId":501694,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-Abortion Exceptionalism after Dobbs\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Sepper\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2023.97\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The end of the constitutional right to abortion with <span>Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health</span> stands to generate massive conflict between abortion regulation and the First Amendment. Abortion exceptionalism within constitutional doctrine -- which both treats abortion differently than other areas and favors anti-abortion over pro-choice viewpoints -- will not retreat but advance, unless confronted by the courts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501694,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.97\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2023.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The end of the constitutional right to abortion with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health stands to generate massive conflict between abortion regulation and the First Amendment. Abortion exceptionalism within constitutional doctrine -- which both treats abortion differently than other areas and favors anti-abortion over pro-choice viewpoints -- will not retreat but advance, unless confronted by the courts.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
