多布斯与宗教自由

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
W. Sarvasy
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织一案中,罗伯茨法院打破了凯西所阐述的赞成和反对世界观之间的妥协,既重申了罗伊案是一个先例,又改变了罗伊案以赋予反对方权力。我将解释妥协,将其与加强反选择方联系起来,提出为什么妥协对反选择方来说不够的问题,并概述第一修正案对堕胎的辩护如何能够重新获得堕胎的基本权利并加强宗教多元化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dobbs and Religious Liberty
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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