Title |
Unconscionable: how the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence lags behind the world when it comes to contraception and conscience
|
---|---|
Published in |
Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, March 2018
|
DOI | 10.1186/s40834-018-0055-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Aram A. Schvey, Claire Kim |
Abstract |
U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence undermines access to contraception by permitting individuals, institutions, and even corporations to claim religious objections to ensuring contraceptive insurance coverage, thus imposing those beliefs on non-adherents and jeopardizing their access to essential reproductive-health services. This jurisprudence is not only harmful but also runs contrary to the laws and policies of peer nations, as well as international human rights principles, which are more protective of the rights of health-care recipients to make their own decisions about contraception free from interference. The United States should look to the practice and jurisprudence of other nations and ensure that religious exemptions are not permitted to deprive a third party of access to contraception. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 80% |
Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 3 | 19% |
Researcher | 2 | 13% |
Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
Other | 2 | 13% |
Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 25% |
Psychology | 2 | 13% |
Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 7 | 44% |