State Courts, State Legislatures, and Setting Abortion Policy.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-10449887
Jeong Hyun Kim, Anna Gunderson, Elizabeth Lane, Nichole M Bauer
{"title":"State Courts, State Legislatures, and Setting Abortion Policy.","authors":"Jeong Hyun Kim,&nbsp;Anna Gunderson,&nbsp;Elizabeth Lane,&nbsp;Nichole M Bauer","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10449887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization (597 U.S. (2022)) to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, a seismic shift in abortion policy that makes the states key battlegrounds in fights over abortion and broader reproductive rights. This article focuses on the role of state supreme courts in setting state abortion policies. Using an original data set of state court decisions surrounding abortion from the past 20 years, the authors investigate how two overarching factors affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. First, they track how states' political environments affect the decisions courts make about access to abortion. Second, the authors consider the scope of the abortion policy considered by the courts. The authors find that the partisan makeup of state legislatures does not influence the direction of state supreme courts' rulings on abortion issues, but it does affect the scope of abortion regulation being considered by the courts. Additionally, they find that elected judges tend to be more responsive to constituent preferences when ruling on abortion policies. Overall, these findings illustrate the multifaceted dynamics involved in state supreme courts' rulings on abortion.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449887","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization (597 U.S. (2022)) to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, a seismic shift in abortion policy that makes the states key battlegrounds in fights over abortion and broader reproductive rights. This article focuses on the role of state supreme courts in setting state abortion policies. Using an original data set of state court decisions surrounding abortion from the past 20 years, the authors investigate how two overarching factors affect state supreme court decision-making on abortion. First, they track how states' political environments affect the decisions courts make about access to abortion. Second, the authors consider the scope of the abortion policy considered by the courts. The authors find that the partisan makeup of state legislatures does not influence the direction of state supreme courts' rulings on abortion issues, but it does affect the scope of abortion regulation being considered by the courts. Additionally, they find that elected judges tend to be more responsive to constituent preferences when ruling on abortion policies. Overall, these findings illustrate the multifaceted dynamics involved in state supreme courts' rulings on abortion.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
州法院,州立法机构和制定堕胎政策。
2022年6月24日,美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案(597 U.S.(2022))中推翻了宪法规定的堕胎权利,这是堕胎政策的重大转变,使各州成为堕胎和更广泛生殖权利斗争的关键战场。这篇文章的重点是国家最高法院在制定国家堕胎政策方面的作用。利用过去20年来州法院关于堕胎的判决的原始数据集,作者研究了两个主要因素如何影响州最高法院关于堕胎的决策。首先,他们追踪各州的政治环境如何影响法院对堕胎权的裁决。其次,作者考虑了法院考虑的堕胎政策的范围。作者发现,州立法机构的党派构成并不影响州最高法院在堕胎问题上的裁决方向,但它确实影响了法院正在考虑的堕胎法规的范围。此外,他们发现当选的法官在对堕胎政策作出裁决时,往往对选民的偏好更敏感。总的来说,这些发现说明了州最高法院对堕胎的裁决涉及多方面的动态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Pandemic Times and Health Care Exclusion: Attitudes Toward Health Care Exclusion of Undocumented Immigrants. Political Partisanship, Confucian Collectivism, and Public Attitudes toward the Vaccination Policy in Taiwan. Regulating Abortion Later in Pregnancy: Fetal-Centric Laws and the Erasure of Women's Subjectivity. The Limits to Food and Beverage Industry Influence over Fiscal and Regulatory Policy in Latin America. Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1