Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Item TypeItem Type
-
SubjectSubject
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersSourceLanguage
Done
Filters
Reset
4
result(s) for
"NARAL Pro-Choice America"
Sort by:
Rethinking Abortion
by
Graber, Mark
in
Abortion
,
Abortion -- Government policy -- United States
,
Abortion -- Political aspects -- United States
1999,1996,2015
Mark Graber looks at the history of abortion law in action to argue that the only defensible, constitutional approach to the issue is to afford all women equal choice--abortion should remain legal or bans should be strictly enforced. Steering away from metaphysical critiques of privacy, Graber compares the philosophical, constitutional, and democratic merits of the two systems of abortion regulation witnessed in the twentieth century: pre-Roe v. Wadestatutory prohibitions on abortion andRoe'sban on significant state interference with the market for safe abortion services. He demonstrates that beforeRoe,pro-life measures were selectively and erratically administered, thereby subverting our constitutional commitment to equal justice. Claiming that these measures would be similarly administered if reinstated, the author seeks to increase support for keeping abortion legal, even among those who have reservations about its morality.
Abortion should remain legal, Graber argues, because statutory bans on abortion have a history of being enforced in ways that intentionally discriminate against poor persons and persons of color. In the years beforeRoe, the same law enforcement officials who routinely ignored and sometimes assisted those physicians seeking to terminate pregnancies for their private patients too often prevented competent abortionists from offering the same services to the general public. This double standard violated the fundamental human and constitutional right of equal justice under law, a right that remains a major concern of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
NARAL v. Roberts
2005
The ad focuses on a friend-of-the-court brief then-deputy Solicitor General [Roberts] filed in 1991 in the Supreme Court case Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. It accuses Judge Roberts of siding with \"violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber,\" and urges viewers to call their Senators to oppose his confirmation. It concludes: \"America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.\"
Newspaper Article