img Leseprobe Leseprobe

Rethinking Abortion

Equal Choice, the Constitution, and Reproductive Politics

Mark Graber

PDF
ca. 47,99
Amazon iTunes Thalia.de Weltbild.de Hugendubel Bücher.de ebook.de kobo Osiander Google Books Barnes&Noble bol.com Legimi yourbook.shop Kulturkaufhaus ebooks-center.de
* Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Hinweis: Affiliatelinks/Werbelinks
Links auf reinlesen.de sind sogenannte Affiliate-Links. Wenn du auf so einen Affiliate-Link klickst und über diesen Link einkaufst, bekommt reinlesen.de von dem betreffenden Online-Shop oder Anbieter eine Provision. Für dich verändert sich der Preis nicht.

Princeton University Press img Link Publisher

Sozialwissenschaften, Recht, Wirtschaft / Allgemeines, Lexika

Beschreibung

Mark Graber looks at the history of abortion law in action to argue that the only defensible, constitutional approach to the issue is to afford all women equal choice--abortion should remain legal or bans should be strictly enforced. Steering away from metaphysical critiques of privacy, Graber compares the philosophical, constitutional, and democratic merits of the two systems of abortion regulation witnessed in the twentieth century: pre-Roe v. Wade statutory prohibitions on abortion and Roe's ban on significant state interference with the market for safe abortion services. He demonstrates that before Roe, pro-life measures were selectively and erratically administered, thereby subverting our constitutional commitment to equal justice. Claiming that these measures would be similarly administered if reinstated, the author seeks to increase support for keeping abortion legal, even among those who have reservations about its morality.


Abortion should remain legal, Graber argues, because statutory bans on abortion have a history of being enforced in ways that intentionally discriminate against poor persons and persons of color. In the years before Roe, the same law enforcement officials who routinely ignored and sometimes assisted those physicians seeking to terminate pregnancies for their private patients too often prevented competent abortionists from offering the same services to the general public. This double standard violated the fundamental human and constitutional right of equal justice under law, a right that remains a major concern of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Kundenbewertungen

Schlagwörter

Phyllis Schlafly, American Life League, Indication (medicine), Pathology, Thalidomide, Sexual abstinence, Abortion law, Incest, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Operation Rescue (Kansas), Brown v. Board of Education, Liberal elite, Prostitution, Abortion-rights movements, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, United States v. Vuitch, Barefoot v. Estelle, Therapeutic abortion, Secularism, Anti-abortion movements, That Justice Be Done, Poor person, United States Bill of Rights, Andrea Dworkin, Pacifism, Medicaid, Popular sovereignty, Abortion in Georgia (U.S. state), Right to privacy, Necessity, Norma McCorvey, Selective enforcement, Abortion debate, Safe sex, Abortion in the United States, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Black school, Disparate impact, Maternal death, Unintended pregnancy, Rely (brand), State actor, Abortion, Unsafe abortion, Roe v. Wade, Radical feminism, Law enforcement, Illegal abortion, Spite fence, Infanticide, Judicial deference, John Doe, Harris v. McRae, Premarital sex, Equal Rights Amendment, Freedom of Choice Act, Birth control, McCleskey v. Kemp, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Bernard Nathanson, Furman v. Georgia, Oppression, Hyde Amendment, Reasonable suspicion, Republicans for Choice, Judicial activism, Natural family planning, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Sister Souljah