家庭和生命倡导者协会对医疗专家的第一修正案

Bradley Queen
{"title":"家庭和生命倡导者协会对医疗专家的第一修正案","authors":"Bradley Queen","doi":"10.35248/2090-7214.21.18.378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) vs. Becerra (2018), the then conservative majority on the United States’ Supreme Court concluded that the California FACT Act violated NIFLA’s right to free speech. The FACT Act an acronym for Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency was put in place to remedy misleading, deceptive, and harmful practices by NIFLA’s crisis pregnancy centers and marketplace communications. Ultimately, the 5-4 majority set aside the reasonable arguments put forward by the American Medical Association in a decision that defers to fundamentalist free speech jurisprudence, diminishes the standing of medical experts, and leaves marketplaces for reproductive products and services impoverished by misinformation.","PeriodicalId":92765,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in mother and child health","volume":"18 1","pages":"1-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The First Amendment of Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Medical Expertise\",\"authors\":\"Bradley Queen\",\"doi\":\"10.35248/2090-7214.21.18.378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) vs. Becerra (2018), the then conservative majority on the United States’ Supreme Court concluded that the California FACT Act violated NIFLA’s right to free speech. The FACT Act an acronym for Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency was put in place to remedy misleading, deceptive, and harmful practices by NIFLA’s crisis pregnancy centers and marketplace communications. Ultimately, the 5-4 majority set aside the reasonable arguments put forward by the American Medical Association in a decision that defers to fundamentalist free speech jurisprudence, diminishes the standing of medical experts, and leaves marketplaces for reproductive products and services impoverished by misinformation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in mother and child health\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"1-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in mother and child health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.35248/2090-7214.21.18.378\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in mother and child health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35248/2090-7214.21.18.378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国最高法院在2018年国家家庭与生命倡导协会(NIFLA)诉贝塞拉(Becerra)一案中,当时的保守派多数派认为,《加州事实法案》侵犯了NIFLA的言论自由权。《事实法案》(FACT Act)是自由、问责、全面护理和透明的首字母缩略词,旨在纠正NIFLA危机怀孕中心和市场沟通中误导、欺骗和有害的做法。最终,5:4的多数票否决了美国医学协会提出的合理论点,这一决定服从原教旨主义的言论自由法理学,削弱了医学专家的地位,并使生殖产品和服务市场因错误信息而变得贫瘠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The First Amendment of Institute of Family and Life Advocates vs. Medical Expertise
With its decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) vs. Becerra (2018), the then conservative majority on the United States’ Supreme Court concluded that the California FACT Act violated NIFLA’s right to free speech. The FACT Act an acronym for Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency was put in place to remedy misleading, deceptive, and harmful practices by NIFLA’s crisis pregnancy centers and marketplace communications. Ultimately, the 5-4 majority set aside the reasonable arguments put forward by the American Medical Association in a decision that defers to fundamentalist free speech jurisprudence, diminishes the standing of medical experts, and leaves marketplaces for reproductive products and services impoverished by misinformation.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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