Abstract
This article explores recent efforts to resurrect casuistry as an effective means for resolving public policy debates on difficult issues such as abortion. The essay begins by comparing casuistical and legal methods of decision-making and goes on to consider the possible benefits of a casuistical approach to abortion policy. On the basis of a detailed examination ofRoe v. Wade andPlanned Parenthood v. Casey, I argue that apparent similarities between feminist methodologies and casuistry do not render casuistry an approach to moral reasoning compatible with feminist concerns for improving women's lives in relation to abortion decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arras, John (1991). ‘Getting down to cases: The revival of casuistry in bioethics,’Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16: 29–51.
Bartlett, Katherine (1990). ‘Feminist legal methods,’Harvard Law Review 103: 829–888.
Bender, Leslie (1988). ‘A lawyer's primer on feminist theory and tort,’Journal of Legal Education 38: 3–36.
Benshoof, Janet (1993). ‘Planned Parenthood v. Casey: The Impact of the New Undue Burden Standard on Reproductive Health Care,’Journal of the American Medical Association, 269: 2249–57.
Cahn, Naomi (1992). ‘The looseness of legal language: The reasonable woman standard in theory and in practice,’Cornell Law Review 77: 1398–1446.
Cahn, Naomi (1990). ‘A preliminary feminist critique of legal ethics,’Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 4: 23–51.
Carlson, Cheree (1992). ‘Creative casuistry and feminist consciousness: The rhetoric of moral reform,’Quarterly Journal of Speech 78: 16–33.
Chamallas, Martha (1992). ‘Feminist constructions of objectivity: Multiple perspectives in sexual and racial harassment litigation,’Texas Journal of Women and Law 1: 95–142.
Davis, Dena (1992). ‘Abortion in Jewish thought: A study in casuistry,’Journal of the American Academy of Religion 60: 313–24.
Doyle, Sara (1993). Case Note. ‘Adopting the unduly burdensome standard,’Mercer Law Review 44: 717–29.
Frug, Mary Jo (1992).Postmodern Legal Feminism. New York: Routledge.
Gilligan, Carol (1982).In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Henderson, Lynne (1986). ‘Legality and empathy,’Michigan Law Review 85: 1574–1653.
Jackson, Emily (1992). ‘Catherine MacKinnon and feminist jurisprudence: A critical appraisal,’Journal of Law and Society 19: 195–213.
Jonsen, Albert and Stephen Toulmin (1988).The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirk, Kenneth (1936).Conscience and Its Problems: An Introduction to Casuistry. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Levi, Edward H. (1949)An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MacKinnon Catherine (1989).Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
MacKinnon, Catherine (1987).Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Menkel-Meadows, Carrie (1992). ‘Mainstreaming feminist legal theory,’Pacific Law Review 23: 1993–1542.
Noddings, Nel (1989).Women and Evil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings, Nel (1989).Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Olsen, Frances (1984). ‘Statutory rape: A feminist critique of rights analysis,’Texas Law Review 63: 387–432.
Olsen, Frances (1983). ‘The family and the market: A study of ideology and legal reform,’Harvard Law Review 96: 1497–1578.
Pascal, Blaise (1657).The Provincial Letters, A. J. Krailsheimer, trans. London: Penguin, 1967.
Perelman, Chaim (1979).The New Rhetoric. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
Rhode, Deborah (1990). ‘Feminist critical theories,’Stanford Law Review 42: 617–38.
Sichol, Marcia (1992). ‘Women and the new casuistry,’Thought 67: 148–157.
Toulmin, Stephen (1982). ‘Equity and principles,’Osgoode Hall Law Journal 20: 1–17.
West, Robin (1988). ‘Jurisprudence and gender,’University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1–72.
West, Robin (1987). ‘The difference in women's hedonic lives: A phenomenological critique of feminist legal theory,’Wisconsin Women's Law Review 3: 81–167.
Woltz, Mark (1993). Note, ‘A bold reaffirmation?Planned Parenthood v. Casey opens the door for states to enact new laws to discourage abortion,’North Carolina Law Review 71: 1787–1813.
Young, Iris Marion (1990).Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peach, L.J. Feminist cautions about casuistry: The Supreme Court's abortion decisions as paradigms. Policy Sci 27, 143–160 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999885
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999885