{"title":"多布斯与宗教自由","authors":"W. Sarvasy","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2022.2119336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Roberts Court shattered the compromise between prochoice and antichoice worldviews that Casey articulated, both reaffirming Roe as a precedent and altering Roe to empower the antichoice side. I will explain the compromise, connect it to the strengthening of the antichoice side, raise the question of why the compromise wasn’t sufficient for the antichoice side, and sketch out how a First Amendment defense of abortion could lead to regaining a fundamental right to abortion and to strengthening religious pluralism.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"44 1","pages":"489 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dobbs and Religious Liberty\",\"authors\":\"W. Sarvasy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07393148.2022.2119336\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Roberts Court shattered the compromise between prochoice and antichoice worldviews that Casey articulated, both reaffirming Roe as a precedent and altering Roe to empower the antichoice side. I will explain the compromise, connect it to the strengthening of the antichoice side, raise the question of why the compromise wasn’t sufficient for the antichoice side, and sketch out how a First Amendment defense of abortion could lead to regaining a fundamental right to abortion and to strengthening religious pluralism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Political Science\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"489 - 492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2119336\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2119336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Roberts Court shattered the compromise between prochoice and antichoice worldviews that Casey articulated, both reaffirming Roe as a precedent and altering Roe to empower the antichoice side. I will explain the compromise, connect it to the strengthening of the antichoice side, raise the question of why the compromise wasn’t sufficient for the antichoice side, and sketch out how a First Amendment defense of abortion could lead to regaining a fundamental right to abortion and to strengthening religious pluralism.