无限制的自由裁量权:不受限制的官僚自由裁量权如何威胁堕胎的可用性。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1215/03616878-10449914
Orlaith Heymann, Danielle Bessett, Alison Norris, Jessie Hill, Danielle Czarnecki, Hillary J Gyuras, Meredith Pensak, Michelle L McGowan
{"title":"无限制的自由裁量权:不受限制的官僚自由裁量权如何威胁堕胎的可用性。","authors":"Orlaith Heymann,&nbsp;Danielle Bessett,&nbsp;Alison Norris,&nbsp;Jessie Hill,&nbsp;Danielle Czarnecki,&nbsp;Hillary J Gyuras,&nbsp;Meredith Pensak,&nbsp;Michelle L McGowan","doi":"10.1215/03616878-10449914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unlimited Discretion: How Unchecked Bureaucratic Discretion Can Threaten Abortion Availability.\",\"authors\":\"Orlaith Heymann,&nbsp;Danielle Bessett,&nbsp;Alison Norris,&nbsp;Jessie Hill,&nbsp;Danielle Czarnecki,&nbsp;Hillary J Gyuras,&nbsp;Meredith Pensak,&nbsp;Michelle L McGowan\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/03616878-10449914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449914\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10449914","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

先前的研究已经评估了国家法规对堕胎诊所和患者的影响,但官僚们如何实施这些法规却鲜为人知,而且随着国家对堕胎法规的仲裁,这一点变得越来越重要。作者对2010年至2022年期间,俄亥俄州西南部的两家堕胎设施进行了一个案例研究,研究官员如何使用自由裁量权来执行州对堕胎的规定。俄亥俄州的堕胎机构必须获得书面转让协议,尽管它没有提供明显的健康或安全好处。作者发现,州对获得变更的要求——一种允许堕胎机构在没有书面转让协议的情况下运作的程序——已经变得极其难以遵守。两位作者展示了州法规和行政法是如何让官僚们行使不受限制的自由裁量权,并强制执行武断的要求。这种无限制的官僚自由裁量权和随之而来的行政负担加剧了诊所的不稳定,并威胁到俄亥俄州西南部近十年来堕胎的可用性。随着堕胎政策的执行和解释越来越多地留给州官僚和公务员,在最高法院的多布斯判决之后,官僚如何使用自由裁量权将影响诊所的稳定性和堕胎的可用性。作者认为,无限制的官僚自由裁量权可能会对全国范围内堕胎的可用性产生更大的影响,因为各州在多布斯事件后争相澄清和实施政策。
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
Unlimited Discretion: How Unchecked Bureaucratic Discretion Can Threaten Abortion Availability.

Previous research has assessed the impact of state regulations on abortion clinics and patients, but how bureaucrats implement them is less understood and is increasingly important as states arbitrate abortion regulation. The authors conducted a case study of how bureaucrats use discretion to implement state regulations on abortion, focusing on two abortion facilities in southwest Ohio from 2010 to 2022. Ohio abortion facilities are required to obtain a written transfer agreement, despite it offering no demonstrable health or safety benefits. The authors find that state requirements for obtaining variances-a process that allows abortion facilities to operate without a written transfer agreement-have become exceedingly difficult to comply with. The authors show how state statutes and administrative law have enabled bureaucrats to wield unlimited discretion and enforce arbitrary requirements. This unlimited bureaucratic discretion and accompanying administrative burden exacerbated clinic instability and threatened abortion availability in southwest Ohio for almost a decade. As implementation and interpretation of abortion policy is increasingly left to state bureaucrats and civil servants following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, how bureaucrats use discretion will influence clinic stability and abortion availability. The authors posit that unlimited bureaucratic discretion may exert greater influence on abortion availability across the nation as states scramble to clarify and implement policies after Dobbs.

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
7.30
自引率
7.10%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.
期刊最新文献
Pandemic Times and Health Care Exclusion: Attitudes Toward Health Care Exclusion of Undocumented Immigrants. Political Partisanship, Confucian Collectivism, and Public Attitudes toward the Vaccination Policy in Taiwan. Regulating Abortion Later in Pregnancy: Fetal-Centric Laws and the Erasure of Women's Subjectivity. The Limits to Food and Beverage Industry Influence over Fiscal and Regulatory Policy in Latin America. Equity Investment in Physician Practices: What's All This Brouhaha?
×
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