Legal moralism and restrictions on abortion.
|Article Type:||Brief article|
|Subject:||Abortion (Laws, regulations and rules)|
|Publication:||Name: The Hastings Center Report Publisher: Hastings Center Audience: Academic; Professional Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Biological sciences; Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 Hastings Center ISSN: 0093-0334|
|Issue:||Date: July-August, 2011 Source Volume: 41 Source Issue: 4|
|Topic:||Event Code: 930 Government regulation; 940 Government regulation (cont); 980 Legal issues & crime Advertising Code: 94 Legal/Government Regulation Computer Subject: Government regulation|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States|
|Legal:||Legal Case: Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992)|
In 2008, 98percent of South Dakota counties had no abortion
provider, so most women would have to travel to reach one, arranging
care for children at home, taking several days off work, and paying not
only for the abortion and transportation, but also for lodging during
the mandatory waiting period. Those sure sound like substantial
obstacles to obtaining an abortion, but given the complete absence of
analysis in 1992's Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
v. Casey, how are we to know?
Also: Alice Dreger thinks Dr. Oz might be more ethical if his show was more like a nineteenth-century freak show; April Michelle Herndon looks at some of the ramifications of calling obesity a disease; and Ross White examines a recent study on the lack of primary care providers, along with some possible solutions to the problem.
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|