ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY

ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY

Perhaps the difference between the example of animal slaughter and the issue of abortion is that, while advocates of animal rights might admit that there is some ambiguity to their claim as compared to the claim of religious observers, advocates of fetal rights tend to express absolute conviction th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Boston University law review 2013-07, Vol.93 (4), p.1297
1. Verfasser: Bridges, Khiara M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Abortion
Constitutional law
Judicial reviews
Women
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1297
container_title Boston University law review
container_volume 93
creator Bridges, Khiara M
description Perhaps the difference between the example of animal slaughter and the issue of abortion is that, while advocates of animal rights might admit that there is some ambiguity to their claim as compared to the claim of religious observers, advocates of fetal rights tend to express absolute conviction that fetal interests should in most, if not all, cases trump the interests of women bearing unwanted pregnancies. [...]the reverse is true of advocates of women's reproductive rights. [...]the likelihood that opponents and supporters of abortion would agree to a "middle ground" -- in which there is a rule prohibiting abortion, but exemptions are allowed for individual women who make convincing arguments about their need to have their normative convictions honored -- is low.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1460175400</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3132572671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-b0e18cd66b2ed2c2a602a6065146d12b141816c71906ba5690ae760a0051598f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjTFrwzAUhDW00CTtfxB0NrwnW0_yqCp2KzAWxMrQKci2MoSQpHHy_-vQDscd3PHdE1sAAGUaCvXCltN0AEAQUi0YmQ-_Cc633FhbdR13c2p5tTHc19z6tgsubB8D08xd7dZV48L3K3vex-OU3v59xbZ1FexX1vhPZ02TXVDnt6yHhHoYiXqRRjGISPAQSSxoRNFjgRppUFgC9VFSCTEpggggUZZ6n6_Y-x_3cj3_3NN02x3O9-tpvtzNCEAlC4D8FwhzOdU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1460175400</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bridges, Khiara M</creator><creatorcontrib>Bridges, Khiara M</creatorcontrib><description>Perhaps the difference between the example of animal slaughter and the issue of abortion is that, while advocates of animal rights might admit that there is some ambiguity to their claim as compared to the claim of religious observers, advocates of fetal rights tend to express absolute conviction that fetal interests should in most, if not all, cases trump the interests of women bearing unwanted pregnancies. [...]the reverse is true of advocates of women's reproductive rights. [...]the likelihood that opponents and supporters of abortion would agree to a "middle ground" -- in which there is a rule prohibiting abortion, but exemptions are allowed for individual women who make convincing arguments about their need to have their normative convictions honored -- is low.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0006-8047</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Boston University School of Law</publisher><subject>Abortion ; Constitutional law ; Judicial reviews ; Women</subject><ispartof>Boston University law review, 2013-07, Vol.93 (4), p.1297</ispartof><rights>Copyright Boston University School of Law Jul 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bridges, Khiara M</creatorcontrib><title>ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY</title><title>Boston University law review</title><description>Perhaps the difference between the example of animal slaughter and the issue of abortion is that, while advocates of animal rights might admit that there is some ambiguity to their claim as compared to the claim of religious observers, advocates of fetal rights tend to express absolute conviction that fetal interests should in most, if not all, cases trump the interests of women bearing unwanted pregnancies. [...]the reverse is true of advocates of women's reproductive rights. [...]the likelihood that opponents and supporters of abortion would agree to a "middle ground" -- in which there is a rule prohibiting abortion, but exemptions are allowed for individual women who make convincing arguments about their need to have their normative convictions honored -- is low.</description><subject>Abortion</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Judicial reviews</subject><subject>Women</subject><issn>0006-8047</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjTFrwzAUhDW00CTtfxB0NrwnW0_yqCp2KzAWxMrQKci2MoSQpHHy_-vQDscd3PHdE1sAAGUaCvXCltN0AEAQUi0YmQ-_Cc633FhbdR13c2p5tTHc19z6tgsubB8D08xd7dZV48L3K3vex-OU3v59xbZ1FexX1vhPZ02TXVDnt6yHhHoYiXqRRjGISPAQSSxoRNFjgRppUFgC9VFSCTEpggggUZZ6n6_Y-x_3cj3_3NN02x3O9-tpvtzNCEAlC4D8FwhzOdU</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Bridges, Khiara M</creator><general>Boston University School of Law</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY</title><author>Bridges, Khiara M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-b0e18cd66b2ed2c2a602a6065146d12b141816c71906ba5690ae760a0051598f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Abortion</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Judicial reviews</topic><topic>Women</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bridges, Khiara M</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Boston University law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bridges, Khiara M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY</atitle><jtitle>Boston University law review</jtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1297</spage><pages>1297-</pages><issn>0006-8047</issn><abstract>Perhaps the difference between the example of animal slaughter and the issue of abortion is that, while advocates of animal rights might admit that there is some ambiguity to their claim as compared to the claim of religious observers, advocates of fetal rights tend to express absolute conviction that fetal interests should in most, if not all, cases trump the interests of women bearing unwanted pregnancies. [...]the reverse is true of advocates of women's reproductive rights. [...]the likelihood that opponents and supporters of abortion would agree to a "middle ground" -- in which there is a rule prohibiting abortion, but exemptions are allowed for individual women who make convincing arguments about their need to have their normative convictions honored -- is low.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Boston University School of Law</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0006-8047
ispartof Boston University law review, 2013-07, Vol.93 (4), p.1297
issn 0006-8047
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1460175400
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Abortion
Constitutional law
Judicial reviews
Women
title ABORTION ACCESS IN AN ERA OF CONSTITUTIONAL INFIDELITY
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T17%3A10%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=ABORTION%20ACCESS%20IN%20AN%20ERA%20OF%20CONSTITUTIONAL%20INFIDELITY&rft.jtitle=Boston%20University%20law%20review&rft.au=Bridges,%20Khiara%20M&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1297&rft.pages=1297-&rft.issn=0006-8047&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3132572671%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1460175400&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true