多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案推理评析

Steven J. Brust
{"title":"多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案推理评析","authors":"Steven J. Brust","doi":"10.5840/cssr2023284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is a cause for rejoicing, it is at the same time a cause for frustration, as it is maddeningly incomplete. This article examines a central problem with the Court’s decision in Dobbs: its studied refusal to take up the question of the personhood of a fetus, and thus its entitlement to rights and protections under law. While the Court in Dobbs sensibly demolished the notion that there is some kind of natural right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and thus sent the matter back to the states, the problem of abortion in America still remains. This article presents a number of the problems that the Dobbs decision brings in its wake, and indicates that pro-lifers will still have a great deal of work to do to address them.","PeriodicalId":348926,"journal":{"name":"The Catholic Social Science Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Assessment of the Reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization\",\"authors\":\"Steven J. Brust\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/cssr2023284\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is a cause for rejoicing, it is at the same time a cause for frustration, as it is maddeningly incomplete. This article examines a central problem with the Court’s decision in Dobbs: its studied refusal to take up the question of the personhood of a fetus, and thus its entitlement to rights and protections under law. While the Court in Dobbs sensibly demolished the notion that there is some kind of natural right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and thus sent the matter back to the states, the problem of abortion in America still remains. This article presents a number of the problems that the Dobbs decision brings in its wake, and indicates that pro-lifers will still have a great deal of work to do to address them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":348926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Catholic Social Science Review\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Catholic Social Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/cssr2023284\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Catholic Social Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/cssr2023284","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

虽然最高法院对多布斯诉杰克逊案的裁决令人欢欣鼓舞,但同时也令人沮丧,因为它的不完整令人抓狂。本文探讨了最高法院在多布斯案中判决的一个核心问题:它刻意拒绝处理胎儿的人格问题,从而拒绝接受胎儿在法律下享有权利和保护的权利。虽然多布斯一案的最高法院明智地推翻了美国宪法中堕胎是一种自然权利的观念,从而把这个问题送回了各州,但美国的堕胎问题仍然存在。本文提出了多布斯案判决带来的一系列问题,并指出反堕胎人士仍有大量工作要做,以解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
An Assessment of the Reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson is a cause for rejoicing, it is at the same time a cause for frustration, as it is maddeningly incomplete. This article examines a central problem with the Court’s decision in Dobbs: its studied refusal to take up the question of the personhood of a fetus, and thus its entitlement to rights and protections under law. While the Court in Dobbs sensibly demolished the notion that there is some kind of natural right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, and thus sent the matter back to the states, the problem of abortion in America still remains. This article presents a number of the problems that the Dobbs decision brings in its wake, and indicates that pro-lifers will still have a great deal of work to do to address them.
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
期刊最新文献
Liberal Authoritarianism Charles Zeiders and Peter Devlin, Malignant Narcissism and Power:A Psychodynamic Exploration of Madness and Leadership The Promise and Danger of National Conservatism Marie Gayle, Blandine Chelini-Pont, and Mark J. Rozell, editors, Catholics and US Politics after the 2020 Elections: Understanding the “Swing Vote” Corporate America’s Embrace of Wokism
×
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