在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中支持被告的 "法庭之友 "经济学家的辩护状。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1111/psrh.12268
Caitlin Myers, Anjali Srinivasan
{"title":"在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案中支持被告的 \"法庭之友 \"经济学家的辩护状。","authors":"Caitlin Myers, Anjali Srinivasan","doi":"10.1111/psrh.12268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A pillar of Mississippi's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was that there is no evidence of \"societal reliance\" on abortion, meaning no reason to believe that access to abortion impacts the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the nation. Led by economist Caitlin Myers and attorney Anjali Srinivasan, more than 150 economists filed an amicus brief seeking to assist the Court in understanding that this assertion is erroneous. The economists describe developments in causal inference methodologies over the last three decades, and the ways in which these tools have been used to isolate the measure of the effects of abortion legalization in the 1970s and of abortion policies and access over the ensuing decades. The economists argue that there is a substantial body of well-developed and credible research that shows that abortion access has had and continues to have a significant effect on birth rates as well as broad downstream social and economic effects, including on women's educational attainment and job opportunities. What follows is a reprint of this brief.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief of Amici Curiae economists in support of respondents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Myers, Anjali Srinivasan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psrh.12268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A pillar of Mississippi's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was that there is no evidence of \\\"societal reliance\\\" on abortion, meaning no reason to believe that access to abortion impacts the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the nation. Led by economist Caitlin Myers and attorney Anjali Srinivasan, more than 150 economists filed an amicus brief seeking to assist the Court in understanding that this assertion is erroneous. The economists describe developments in causal inference methodologies over the last three decades, and the ways in which these tools have been used to isolate the measure of the effects of abortion legalization in the 1970s and of abortion policies and access over the ensuing decades. The economists argue that there is a substantial body of well-developed and credible research that shows that abortion access has had and continues to have a significant effect on birth rates as well as broad downstream social and economic effects, including on women's educational attainment and job opportunities. What follows is a reprint of this brief.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12268\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12268","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

密西西比州在 "多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案 "中的一个主要论点是,没有证据表明 "社会依赖 "堕胎,即没有理由相信堕胎会影响妇女参与国家经济和社会生活的能力。在经济学家 Caitlin Myers 和律师 Anjali Srinivasan 的领导下,150 多名经济学家提交了一份法庭之友书状,试图帮助法院理解这一论断是错误的。这些经济学家描述了过去三十年来因果推理方法的发展,以及这些工具如何被用于分离 20 世纪 70 年代堕胎合法化以及随后几十年堕胎政策和堕胎机会的影响措施。经济学家们认为,大量成熟可靠的研究表明,堕胎已经并将继续对出生率以及广泛的下游社会和经济影响(包括对妇女教育程度和就业机会的影响)产生重大影响。以下是该简报的重印本。
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
Brief of Amici Curiae economists in support of respondents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

A pillar of Mississippi's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health was that there is no evidence of "societal reliance" on abortion, meaning no reason to believe that access to abortion impacts the ability of women to participate in the economic and social life of the nation. Led by economist Caitlin Myers and attorney Anjali Srinivasan, more than 150 economists filed an amicus brief seeking to assist the Court in understanding that this assertion is erroneous. The economists describe developments in causal inference methodologies over the last three decades, and the ways in which these tools have been used to isolate the measure of the effects of abortion legalization in the 1970s and of abortion policies and access over the ensuing decades. The economists argue that there is a substantial body of well-developed and credible research that shows that abortion access has had and continues to have a significant effect on birth rates as well as broad downstream social and economic effects, including on women's educational attainment and job opportunities. What follows is a reprint of this brief.

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
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
期刊最新文献
Estimating the economic impact of restricting reproductive healthcare access in Ohio. "Trust Women": Characteristics of and learnings from patients of a Shield Law medication abortion practice in the United States. Sexual choking/strangulation and its association with condom and contraceptive use: Findings from a survey of students at a university in the Midwestern United States. Understanding abortion legality and trimester of abortion care in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, three abortion‐restrictive states Exploring adolescent-facing US clinicians' perceptions of their contraceptive counseling and use of shared decision-making: A qualitative study.
×
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