澳大利亚反堕胎活动家对堕胎法挑战的法律和政治评估以及澳大利亚和美国堕胎法的进展

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-08-29 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac029
A. O'Rourke
{"title":"澳大利亚反堕胎活动家对堕胎法挑战的法律和政治评估以及澳大利亚和美国堕胎法的进展","authors":"A. O'Rourke","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Historically, in Australia the issue of abortion had not attracted the violent protests that are frequently part of the American political landscape. Nor had it featured prominently in parliamentary debates. This began to change in 2004 when the issue was put on the political agenda by a small but vocal group of conservative members of the Federal Parliament. It also emerged as an issue at the state government level between 2008 and 2019 with the decriminalization of abortion in four Australian states and one territory. These changes in turn, led to a response by opponents along three lines as follows: first, legal challenges to safe access zones around fertility clinics; second, the pursuit of legal recognition of fetal personhood in state parliaments; and third, ongoing attempts to prevent Medicare (public) funding of abortions in relation to the occurrence of sex-selection abortion. All three strategies have been influenced by, or are copies of, the actions of antiabortion activists in the United States. To date, none of these strategies have proven successful in Australia. Nonetheless, anti-abortion activists are resolute in their desire to overturn recent gains in decriminalising abortion law in Australia. While Australian developments are in conformity with global trends towards liberalization of abortion law, the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States and the restrictions introduced across various states in America, has emboldened opponents of abortion who hope to replicate similar bans and restrictions in Australia.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Legal and Political Assessment of Challenges to Abortion Laws by Anti-choice Activists in Australia and the Progression of Abortion Law in Australia and the United States\",\"authors\":\"A. O'Rourke\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajcl/avac029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Historically, in Australia the issue of abortion had not attracted the violent protests that are frequently part of the American political landscape. Nor had it featured prominently in parliamentary debates. This began to change in 2004 when the issue was put on the political agenda by a small but vocal group of conservative members of the Federal Parliament. It also emerged as an issue at the state government level between 2008 and 2019 with the decriminalization of abortion in four Australian states and one territory. These changes in turn, led to a response by opponents along three lines as follows: first, legal challenges to safe access zones around fertility clinics; second, the pursuit of legal recognition of fetal personhood in state parliaments; and third, ongoing attempts to prevent Medicare (public) funding of abortions in relation to the occurrence of sex-selection abortion. All three strategies have been influenced by, or are copies of, the actions of antiabortion activists in the United States. To date, none of these strategies have proven successful in Australia. Nonetheless, anti-abortion activists are resolute in their desire to overturn recent gains in decriminalising abortion law in Australia. While Australian developments are in conformity with global trends towards liberalization of abortion law, the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States and the restrictions introduced across various states in America, has emboldened opponents of abortion who hope to replicate similar bans and restrictions in Australia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51579,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac029","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从历史上看,在澳大利亚,堕胎问题并没有引起暴力抗议,而暴力抗议经常是美国政治格局的一部分。它也没有在议会辩论中占据突出地位。这种情况在2004年开始发生变化,当时联邦议会中为数不多但直言不讳的保守派议员将这一问题提上了政治议程。在2008年至2019年期间,随着澳大利亚四个州和一个地区将堕胎合法化,堕胎也成为州政府层面的一个问题。这些变化反过来又引起了反对者的回应,主要有以下三点:首先,对生育诊所周围安全区域的法律挑战;第二,在州议会中寻求对胎儿人格的法律承认;第三,正在努力防止医疗保险(公共)资助与性别选择堕胎有关的堕胎。这三种策略都受到美国反堕胎活动人士行动的影响,或者都是他们的复制品。迄今为止,这些策略都没有在澳大利亚取得成功。尽管如此,反堕胎活动人士坚决希望推翻澳大利亚最近在堕胎合法化方面取得的进展。虽然澳大利亚的事态发展符合放宽堕胎法的全球趋势,但美国最高法院最近推翻了罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade),以及美国各州出台的限制措施,使反对堕胎的人士更加大胆,他们希望在澳大利亚复制类似的禁令和限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Legal and Political Assessment of Challenges to Abortion Laws by Anti-choice Activists in Australia and the Progression of Abortion Law in Australia and the United States
Historically, in Australia the issue of abortion had not attracted the violent protests that are frequently part of the American political landscape. Nor had it featured prominently in parliamentary debates. This began to change in 2004 when the issue was put on the political agenda by a small but vocal group of conservative members of the Federal Parliament. It also emerged as an issue at the state government level between 2008 and 2019 with the decriminalization of abortion in four Australian states and one territory. These changes in turn, led to a response by opponents along three lines as follows: first, legal challenges to safe access zones around fertility clinics; second, the pursuit of legal recognition of fetal personhood in state parliaments; and third, ongoing attempts to prevent Medicare (public) funding of abortions in relation to the occurrence of sex-selection abortion. All three strategies have been influenced by, or are copies of, the actions of antiabortion activists in the United States. To date, none of these strategies have proven successful in Australia. Nonetheless, anti-abortion activists are resolute in their desire to overturn recent gains in decriminalising abortion law in Australia. While Australian developments are in conformity with global trends towards liberalization of abortion law, the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States and the restrictions introduced across various states in America, has emboldened opponents of abortion who hope to replicate similar bans and restrictions in Australia.
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
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
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