Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Inherently Unjust Limitation to Reproductive Rights.

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2022.28
Rebecca Feinberg, Danielle Pacia
{"title":"Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Inherently Unjust Limitation to Reproductive Rights.","authors":"Rebecca Feinberg, Danielle Pacia","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abortion, though afforded certain legal protections, can be challenging to access in many areas of the United States, a problem exacerbated by the presence of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). CPCs present themselves as clinics that provide a full spectrum of free pregnancy consultation services, but in fact are pro-life, anti-abortion organizations.1 From the outside, CPCs appear to be neutral health and welfare establishments, leading women *to believe they will receive unbiased guidance based on their best interests. In reality, CPCs recruit unsuspecting women into their facilities to deter them from accessing abortions, promoting only two options: parenthood or adoption.2 Women are lured into CPCs with the promise of free services which range from medical care to clothing and other items. At its most basic level, these deceptive practices violate the autonomy of women seeking reproductive care, perpetuating unjust limitation of access to quality medical care.","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 2-3","pages":"275-285"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.28","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abortion, though afforded certain legal protections, can be challenging to access in many areas of the United States, a problem exacerbated by the presence of Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). CPCs present themselves as clinics that provide a full spectrum of free pregnancy consultation services, but in fact are pro-life, anti-abortion organizations.1 From the outside, CPCs appear to be neutral health and welfare establishments, leading women *to believe they will receive unbiased guidance based on their best interests. In reality, CPCs recruit unsuspecting women into their facilities to deter them from accessing abortions, promoting only two options: parenthood or adoption.2 Women are lured into CPCs with the promise of free services which range from medical care to clothing and other items. At its most basic level, these deceptive practices violate the autonomy of women seeking reproductive care, perpetuating unjust limitation of access to quality medical care.
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
危机怀孕中心:对生殖权利的内在不公正限制。
堕胎虽然有一定的法律保护,但在美国的许多地区,堕胎仍然是一项挑战,而危机怀孕中心(cpc)的存在加剧了这一问题。cpc自称是提供全方位免费妊娠咨询服务的诊所,但实际上是反堕胎、反堕胎的组织从表面上看,中心似乎是中立的健康和福利机构,这让女性*相信她们会得到基于自身最大利益的公正指导。实际上,cpc招募不知情的妇女到他们的设施阻止她们堕胎,只宣传两种选择:父母或收养妇女被承诺提供免费服务(从医疗到服装和其他物品)吸引到cpc。在最基本的层面上,这些欺骗性做法侵犯了寻求生殖保健的妇女的自主权,使获得高质量医疗保健的机会永远受到不公正的限制。
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
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
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