Suppr超能文献

堕胎权利:美国学术科学家的观点

Abortion Rights: Perspectives of Academic Scientists in the United States.

作者信息

Frandell Ashlee, Islam Shaika, Chen Tipeng, Caldarulo Mattia, Johnson Timothy P, Michalegko Lesley, Zhang Yidan, Welch Eric

机构信息

University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2024 Sep 4;5(1):602-612. doi: 10.1089/whr.2024.0041. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

In 2022, the US Supreme Court decision in to overturn federal law safeguarding abortion rights led to considerable national debate on abortion and reproductive rights. We report the findings of a survey of academic scientists' perspectives regarding abortion rights, state policies, and the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in . Furthermore, we look at how academic scientists' institutions acted to address the decision. Using a 2023 cross-sectional survey, we address the following research questions: (i) What are scientists' views of abortion rights? (ii) How have scientists responded to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in ? and (iii) How are their views different from that of the general public with regard to and abortion rights in general? Findings show that abortion was a key factor influencing scientists' voting decisions. We also highlight substantial differences between scientists' perspectives and those of the general population and reveal gender differences of opinions within the scientific community. We conclude by presenting the actions implemented by universities and scholars in response to the decision and discuss the implications our results have for both policy and practice.

摘要

2022年,美国最高法院关于推翻保障堕胎权联邦法律的裁决引发了全国范围内关于堕胎和生殖权利的激烈辩论。我们报告了一项针对学术科学家对堕胎权、州政策以及2022年最高法院该裁决影响的观点的调查结果。此外,我们审视了学术科学家所在机构针对该裁决采取的行动。通过2023年的横断面调查,我们探讨以下研究问题:(i)科学家对堕胎权的看法是什么?(ii)科学家如何回应2022年最高法院的该裁决?以及(iii)在该裁决和堕胎权总体方面,他们的观点与普通公众有何不同?研究结果表明,堕胎是影响科学家投票决定的关键因素。我们还强调了科学家观点与普通民众观点之间的显著差异,并揭示了科学界内部的意见性别差异。我们通过介绍大学和学者针对该裁决采取的行动来得出结论,并讨论我们的结果对政策和实践的影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd96/11513566/d93c7a7c8f4f/whr.2024.0041_figure1.jpg

相似文献

1
Abortion Rights: Perspectives of Academic Scientists in the United States.
Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2024 Sep 4;5(1):602-612. doi: 10.1089/whr.2024.0041. eCollection 2024.
2
Potential Effects of on Civil Commitment Law.
Am J Law Med. 2023 Jul;49(2-3):359-373. doi: 10.1017/amj.2023.37. Epub 2024 Feb 12.
3
People's knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the decision.
Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2023 Dec;31(1):2233794. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2023.2233794.
4
Online Medication Abortion Direct-to-Patient Fulfillment Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Decision.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Oct 1;7(10):e2434675. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34675.
5
Impact of State Abortion Policies on Family Medicine Practice and Training After .
Ann Fam Med. 2024 Nov-Dec;22(6):492-501. doi: 10.1370/afm.3183.
8
Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of .
Am J Law Med. 2023 Dec;49(4):471-492. doi: 10.1017/amj.2024.4. Epub 2024 Apr 2.

引用本文的文献

1
Invitation appeals and STEM academic scientists research participation: Findings from six survey experiments.
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 17;20(6):e0326331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326331. eCollection 2025.

本文引用的文献

1
People's knowledge of and attitudes toward abortion laws before and after the decision.
Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2023 Dec;31(1):2233794. doi: 10.1080/26410397.2023.2233794.
2
The Challenges in Measurement for Abortion Access and Use in Research Post-Dobbs.
Womens Health Issues. 2023 Jul-Aug;33(4):323-327. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2023.05.002. Epub 2023 May 22.
3
Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Mar 28;120(13):e2215324120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2215324120. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
5
An exploratory examination of attitudes toward illegal abortion in the U.S. through endorsement of various punishments.
Contraception. 2023 May;121:109952. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2023.109952. Epub 2023 Jan 11.
6
Overturning : Medical and Legal Impacts on Blood Transfusion in the Obstetric Population.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Feb;32(2):129-131. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2022.0441. Epub 2022 Dec 21.
7
U.S. Women's Knowledge of Reproductive Biology.
Womens Health Issues. 2023 Jan-Feb;33(1):54-66. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2022.05.004. Epub 2022 Jul 20.
8
Lawmakers v. The Scientific Realities of Human Reproduction.
N Engl J Med. 2022 Jul 28;387(4):367-368. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe2208288. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
9
Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM.
J Neurosci Res. 2021 Jan;99(1):13-23. doi: 10.1002/jnr.24631. Epub 2020 Oct 25.
10
Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis.
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X. Epub 2014 May 5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验