堕胎权利:美国学术科学家的观点。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) Pub Date : 2024-09-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1089/whr.2024.0041
Ashlee Frandell, Shaika Islam, Tipeng Chen, Mattia Caldarulo, Timothy P Johnson, Lesley Michalegko, Yidan Zhang, Eric Welch
{"title":"堕胎权利:美国学术科学家的观点。","authors":"Ashlee Frandell, Shaika Islam, Tipeng Chen, Mattia Caldarulo, Timothy P Johnson, Lesley Michalegko, Yidan Zhang, Eric Welch","doi":"10.1089/whr.2024.0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2022, the US Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i> to overturn federal law safeguarding abortion rights led to considerable national debate on abortion and reproductive rights. We report the findings of a survey of academic scientists' perspectives regarding abortion rights, state policies, and the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i>. Furthermore, we look at how academic scientists' institutions acted to address the <i>Dobbs</i> decision. Using a 2023 cross-sectional survey, we address the following research questions: (i) What are scientists' views of abortion rights? (ii) How have scientists responded to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i>? and (iii) How are their views different from that of the general public with regard to <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> and abortion rights in general? Findings show that abortion was a key factor influencing scientists' voting decisions. We also highlight substantial differences between scientists' perspectives and those of the general population and reveal gender differences of opinions within the scientific community. We conclude by presenting the actions implemented by universities and scholars in response to the <i>Dobbs</i> decision and discuss the implications our results have for both policy and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":75329,"journal":{"name":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"5 1","pages":"602-612"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11513566/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Abortion Rights: Perspectives of Academic Scientists in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Ashlee Frandell, Shaika Islam, Tipeng Chen, Mattia Caldarulo, Timothy P Johnson, Lesley Michalegko, Yidan Zhang, Eric Welch\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/whr.2024.0041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 2022, the US Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i> to overturn federal law safeguarding abortion rights led to considerable national debate on abortion and reproductive rights. We report the findings of a survey of academic scientists' perspectives regarding abortion rights, state policies, and the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i>. Furthermore, we look at how academic scientists' institutions acted to address the <i>Dobbs</i> decision. Using a 2023 cross-sectional survey, we address the following research questions: (i) What are scientists' views of abortion rights? (ii) How have scientists responded to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization</i>? and (iii) How are their views different from that of the general public with regard to <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> and abortion rights in general? Findings show that abortion was a key factor influencing scientists' voting decisions. We also highlight substantial differences between scientists' perspectives and those of the general population and reveal gender differences of opinions within the scientific community. We conclude by presenting the actions implemented by universities and scholars in response to the <i>Dobbs</i> decision and discuss the implications our results have for both policy and practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"602-612\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11513566/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2024.0041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2022 年,美国最高法院在 "多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案"(Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization)中做出判决,推翻了保障堕胎权利的联邦法律,引发了全国范围内关于堕胎和生殖权利的广泛讨论。我们报告了对学术科学家关于堕胎权、州政策以及 2022 年最高法院对多布斯诉杰克逊案判决的影响的看法的调查结果。此外,我们还考察了学术科学家所在机构是如何应对多布斯案判决的。通过 2023 年的横截面调查,我们探讨了以下研究问题:(i) 科学家对堕胎权的看法如何?(ii) 科学家如何回应最高法院 2022 年对多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案的判决? (iii) 在多布斯诉杰克逊案和一般堕胎权问题上,科学家的观点与公众的观点有何不同?研究结果表明,堕胎是影响科学家投票决定的关键因素。我们还强调了科学家与普通大众在观点上的巨大差异,并揭示了科学界内部在观点上的性别差异。最后,我们介绍了大学和学者针对多布斯案判决所采取的行动,并讨论了我们的研究结果对政策和实践的影响。
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
Abortion Rights: Perspectives of Academic Scientists in the United States.

In 2022, the US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to overturn federal law safeguarding abortion rights led to considerable national debate on abortion and reproductive rights. We report the findings of a survey of academic scientists' perspectives regarding abortion rights, state policies, and the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. Furthermore, we look at how academic scientists' institutions acted to address the Dobbs decision. Using a 2023 cross-sectional survey, we address the following research questions: (i) What are scientists' views of abortion rights? (ii) How have scientists responded to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization? and (iii) How are their views different from that of the general public with regard to Dobbs v. Jackson and abortion rights in general? Findings show that abortion was a key factor influencing scientists' voting decisions. We also highlight substantial differences between scientists' perspectives and those of the general population and reveal gender differences of opinions within the scientific community. We conclude by presenting the actions implemented by universities and scholars in response to the Dobbs decision and discuss the implications our results have for both policy and practice.

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
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Young Adults' Understanding of Modifiable Risk Factors of Infertility. Increased risks of Maternal Mental Health Conditions Following the COVID-19 Pandemic. Gut Akkermansia muciniphila, Prevotellaceae, and Enterobacteriaceae spp. as Possible Markers in Women-Related Nutritional and Clinical Trials: Familial Mediterranean Fever Disease. Impact of Illness Perception in Overweight and Obesity on Bio-Functional Age and Eating/Movement Behavior-A Follow-Up Study. Web-Based Development of Standard Operating Procedures and Midwifery Trainings at Ugandan Birth Clinic in the Framework of Implementing a Quality Improvement System for the MEWU-Midwife Exchange with Uganda.
×
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