↓ Skip to main content

Unconscionable: how the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence lags behind the world when it comes to contraception and conscience

Overview of attention for article published in Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
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

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

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%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2021.
All research outputs
#2,953,528
of 23,079,238 outputs
Outputs from Contraception and Reproductive Medicine
#16
of 91 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,916
of 332,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Contraception and Reproductive Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,079,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 91 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.