在国际人权层面挑战美国最高法院对罗伊诉韦德案的多数裁决。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health and Human Rights Pub Date : 2023-06-01
Marge Berer
{"title":"在国际人权层面挑战美国最高法院对罗伊诉韦德案的多数裁决。","authors":"Marge Berer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper proposes that US human rights experts and abortion rights advocates challenge the striking down of <i>Roe v. Wade</i> in June 2022 by the majority of US Supreme Court justices because of the multiple human rights violations it has engendered. The paper has three parts. The first part summarizes the compelling response of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices to the majority ruling, which spells out those violations in detail. The second part offers a history of cases of violations of human rights related to abortion in other countries that have been heard and adjudicated by a range of human rights bodies in the last 20 years, and their outcomes. It shows that working on these cases has created working relationships between national and international human rights experts and advocates. Based on this information, the third part proposes that US human rights and abortion rights advocates take a case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the US Supreme Court ruling, asking the commission to direct the US government to void the majority ruling on <i>Roe v. Wade</i>-on the grounds that it violates the human rights of anyone who seeks an abortion and potentially also of those whose wanted pregnancies become a risk to their health and life and need to be terminated. And if the United States does not agree, the commission should refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":46953,"journal":{"name":"Health and Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/14/hhr-25-01-195.PMC10309145.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging the US Supreme Court's Majority Ruling on <i>Roe v. Wade</i> at the International Human Rights Level.\",\"authors\":\"Marge Berer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper proposes that US human rights experts and abortion rights advocates challenge the striking down of <i>Roe v. Wade</i> in June 2022 by the majority of US Supreme Court justices because of the multiple human rights violations it has engendered. The paper has three parts. The first part summarizes the compelling response of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices to the majority ruling, which spells out those violations in detail. The second part offers a history of cases of violations of human rights related to abortion in other countries that have been heard and adjudicated by a range of human rights bodies in the last 20 years, and their outcomes. It shows that working on these cases has created working relationships between national and international human rights experts and advocates. Based on this information, the third part proposes that US human rights and abortion rights advocates take a case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the US Supreme Court ruling, asking the commission to direct the US government to void the majority ruling on <i>Roe v. Wade</i>-on the grounds that it violates the human rights of anyone who seeks an abortion and potentially also of those whose wanted pregnancies become a risk to their health and life and need to be terminated. And if the United States does not agree, the commission should refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/84/14/hhr-25-01-195.PMC10309145.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出,美国人权专家和堕胎权利倡导者对2022年6月美国最高法院多数法官推翻罗伊诉韦德案提出质疑,因为它造成了多重人权侵犯。本文共分三部分。第一部分总结了三位持不同意见的最高法院法官对多数裁决的令人信服的回应,详细说明了这些违规行为。第二部分提供了在过去20年中由一系列人权机构审理和裁决的其他国家与堕胎有关的侵犯人权案件的历史及其结果。它表明,处理这些案件在国内和国际人权专家和倡导者之间建立了工作关系。基于这些信息,第三部分提出,美国人权和堕胎权利倡导者采取案例美洲人权委员会对美国最高法院裁决,要求欧盟委员会直接美国政府取消绝大多数裁决罗伊诉韦德这样在的,因为它违反了人权的人寻求堕胎和那些想要怀孕成为风险的可能也对他们的健康和生命,需要终止。如果美国不同意,该委员会应该将此案提交美洲人权法院。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Challenging the US Supreme Court's Majority Ruling on Roe v. Wade at the International Human Rights Level.

This paper proposes that US human rights experts and abortion rights advocates challenge the striking down of Roe v. Wade in June 2022 by the majority of US Supreme Court justices because of the multiple human rights violations it has engendered. The paper has three parts. The first part summarizes the compelling response of the three dissenting Supreme Court justices to the majority ruling, which spells out those violations in detail. The second part offers a history of cases of violations of human rights related to abortion in other countries that have been heard and adjudicated by a range of human rights bodies in the last 20 years, and their outcomes. It shows that working on these cases has created working relationships between national and international human rights experts and advocates. Based on this information, the third part proposes that US human rights and abortion rights advocates take a case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the US Supreme Court ruling, asking the commission to direct the US government to void the majority ruling on Roe v. Wade-on the grounds that it violates the human rights of anyone who seeks an abortion and potentially also of those whose wanted pregnancies become a risk to their health and life and need to be terminated. And if the United States does not agree, the commission should refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

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
Health and Human Rights
Health and Human Rights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
5.40%
发文量
22
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Human Rights began publication in 1994 under the editorship of Jonathan Mann, who was succeeded in 1997 by Sofia Gruskin. Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners In Health, assumed the editorship in 2007. After more than a decade as a leading forum of debate on global health and rights concerns, Health and Human Rights made a significant new transition to an online, open access publication with Volume 10, Issue Number 1, in the summer of 2008. While continuing the journal’s print-only tradition of critical scholarship, Health and Human Rights, now available as both print and online text, provides an inclusive forum for action-oriented dialogue among human rights practitioners.
期刊最新文献
"It's about Rights": The Bunya Project's Indigenous Australian Voices on Health Care Curricula and Practice. "Reducing the Treatment Gap" Poses Human Rights Risks. "They Had to Catch Me Like an Animal": Exploring Experiences of Involuntary Care for People with Psychosocial Conditions in South Africa. Are Rights-Based Services Important? An Adolescent PrEP Demonstration Project in Brazil. Law, Human Rights, and Pandemic Response: Reflecting on the South African HIV Response 25 Years Later.
×
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