Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Making a Case for Stricter Abortion Laws pp 55–93Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Ways of Making Western Abortion Laws More Restrictive

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 416 Accesses

Abstract

I begin this chapter by describing the value at stake when abortion laws are made more restrictive: the reproductive freedom of women. Therefore, it is morally risky not only to permit but also to restrict abortion. However, by addressing the negative effects of restrictive abortion laws, this risk can be managed. To explore, systematically, how this can be done, I construe an analytical tool based on a classification of measures that the state can undertake in order to prevent, mitigate, or/and compensate for these effects. I then sketch and defend a dual policy approach by which the state can manage the moral risks both of permitting and restricting abortion. I end this chapter by anticipating certain objections to my approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amar, A. R. (2005). Concurring in Roe, dissenting in Doe. In J. Balkin (Ed.), What Roe v. Wade should have said: The nation’s top legal experts rewrite America’s most controversial decision. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., Fink, G., & Finlay, J. E. (2010). The cost of low fertility in Europe. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 26(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boland, R. (2010). Second trimester abortion laws globally: Actuality trends and recommendations. Reproductive Health Matters, 18(36), 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Norman, D., & Wikler, D. I. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, I. (2016). Positive and negative liberty, In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 edition). URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/liberty-positive-negative/. Accessed 31 May 2017.

  • Collier, D., LaPorte, J., & Seawright, J. (2012). Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K., & Gavidia-Payne, S. (2009). The impact of child, family, and professional support characteristics on the quality of life in families of young children with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34(2), 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowd, N. E. (1994). Feminist analysis of adoption. Harvard Law Review, 107(4), 913–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumsday, T. (2016). Why governments that fund elective abortion are obligated to attempt a reduction in the elective abortion rate. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 13(1), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsæter, A. L. (2010). Feminist policies and feminist conflicts: Daddy’s care or mother’s milk? In J. L. Scott, R. Crompton, & C. Lyonette (Eds.), Gender inequalities in the 21st century: New barriers and continuing constraints (pp. 257–274). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. (2007). Valuing children. Rethinking the economics of the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finer, L. B., Frohwirth, L. F., Dauphinee, L. A., Singh, S., & Moore, A. M. (2005). Reasons US women have abortions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3), 110–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, P. (2007). Is there an expressive function of law? An empirical analysis of voting laws with symbolic fines. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A. H. (2007). The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Population Research and Policy Review, 26(3), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheaus, A., & Robeyns, I. (2011). Equality-promoting parental leave. Journal of Social Philosophy, 42(2), 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gius, M. P. (2007). The impact of provider availability and legal restrictions on the demand for abortions by young women. The Social Science Journal, 44(3), 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, G. A. (2016). Adoption of children with disabilities: An exploration of the issues for adoptive families. Early Child Development and Care, 186(4), 642–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (1996). What do alternative sanctions mean? University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 591–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, M., Aneblom, G., Odlind, V., & Tyden, T. (2002). Reasons for pregnancy termination, contraceptive habits and contraceptive failure among Swedish women requesting an early pregnancy termination. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 81(1), 64–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1998). The new Chicago school. Journal of Legal Studies, 27(2), 661–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P. B. (2004). Sex and consequences: Abortion, public policy, and the economics of fertility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, S. M. (2007). Time-relative interests and abortion. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4(2), 242–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoudi, H., Renn, O., Vanclay, F., Hoffmann, V., & Karami, E. (2013). A framework for combining social impact assessment and risk assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 43, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (Ed.). (2013). State feminism, women’s movements, and job training: Making democracies work in the global economy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, R. H., & Rasmusen, E. (2006), Norms in law and economics. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, R. H., & Rasmusen, E. B. (2007). Norms and the law. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of law and economics, 2 (pp. 1573–1618). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medoff, M. H. (2012). Restrictive abortion laws, antiabortion attitudes and women’s contraceptive use. Social science research, 41(1), 160–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., Rindfuss, R. R., McDonald, P., & Te Velde, E. (2011). Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Human Reproduction Update, 17(6), 848–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New, M. J. (2011). Analyzing the effect of anti-abortion US state legislation in the Post-Casey era. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 11(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, W. J. (2007). An argument against abortion on demand. Ratio, 20(1), 71–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L. (2012). Adoption is not abortion‐lite. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(1), 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajvanshi, A. (2008). Mitigation and compensation in environmental assessment. In R. Belcakove, T. Aschemnn, T. Fisher, & U. JHa-Thakur (Eds.), Environmental assessment lecturers’ handbook (pp. 167–198). Slovak: Slovak University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roquetti, D. R., Moretto, E. M., & de Almeida Sinisgalli, P. A. (2016). A sustainability analysis of environmental management approaches: Prevention, mitigation and compensation. Proceedings of the International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 6(1), 24–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, D. (2012). Unsex mothering: Toward a new culture of parenting. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 35, 58–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (1996). On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania law review, 144(5), 2021–2053.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, A. (1984). On the moral and legal status of abortion. In J. Feinberg (Ed.), The problem of abortion (pp. 102–119). Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeiss, C. (1991). Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 11(3), 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Science Department, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Henrik Friberg-Fernros

Authors
  1. Henrik Friberg-Fernros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Friberg-Fernros, H. (2017). Ways of Making Western Abortion Laws More Restrictive. In: Making a Case for Stricter Abortion Laws . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57291-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation