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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending life: A moral and legal case against abortion choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Boland, R. (2010). Second trimester abortion laws globally: Actuality trends and recommendations. Reproductive Health Matters, 18(36), 67–89.
Buchanan, A., Brock, D. W., Norman, D., & Wikler, D. I. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Dowd, N. E. (1994). Feminist analysis of adoption. Harvard Law Review, 107(4), 913–936.
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.
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.
Folbre, N. (2007). Valuing children. Rethinking the economics of the family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Gheaus, A., & Robeyns, I. (2011). Equality-promoting parental leave. Journal of Social Philosophy, 42(2), 173–191.
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.
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.
Hernes, H. M. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Kahan, D. M. (1996). What do alternative sanctions mean? University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 591–653.
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.
Lessig, L. (1998). The new Chicago school. Journal of Legal Studies, 27(2), 661–691.
Levine, P. B. (2004). Sex and consequences: Abortion, public policy, and the economics of fertility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Liao, S. M. (2007). Time-relative interests and abortion. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4(2), 242–256.
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.
Mazur, A. (Ed.). (2013). State feminism, women’s movements, and job training: Making democracies work in the global economy. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
McDonald, P. (2006). Low fertility and the state: The efficacy of policy. Population and Development Review, 32(3), 485–510.
Medoff, M. H. (2012). Restrictive abortion laws, antiabortion attitudes and women’s contraceptive use. Social science research, 41(1), 160–169.
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.
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.
Pollock, W. J. (2007). An argument against abortion on demand. Ratio, 20(1), 71–74.
Porter, L. (2012). Adoption is not abortion‐lite. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(1), 63–78.
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.
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.
Rosenblum, D. (2012). Unsex mothering: Toward a new culture of parenting. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 35, 58–115.
Rothstein, B. (1998). Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (1996). On the expressive function of law. University of Pennsylvania law review, 144(5), 2021–2053.
Warren, A. (1984). On the moral and legal status of abortion. In J. Feinberg (Ed.), The problem of abortion (pp. 102–119). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Zeiss, C. (1991). Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 11(3), 231–255.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57291-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57290-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57291-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)