Suchergebnisse

AbstractAbortion's centrality to the Christian Right, together with that movement's importance to Republican Party politics, as well as the policy realities of abortion, have all combined to make regulating abortion a fixture within U.S. state politics for decades. While the levels and forms of state activity have varied since the 1980s, the Trump presidency has produced strategic changes in the content and perceived importance of abortion policy. Notably, recent changes in the state politics of abortion have not just been on the side of Republican states restricting abortion access, the most traditional and highest profile form of policy activity in this area, but have also taken the form of Democratic states actively defending abortion access. This article provides an overview of the interrelated changes in party politics, perceptions of political opportunities, and the content of state abortion regulations. It concludes that the frequency of state abortion laws has increased modestly during the Trump presidency, but substantive shifts in recent policies create the potential to fundamentally reorganize state and national abortion politics.

Taking both an event-centered and a process approach to cause lawyering, the chapter asks: (1) if, when, and how working with movements can lead to one being functionally seen as a cause lawyer and (2) whether researchers should include 'hired gun' and state attorneys in the cause lawyering conversation. These questions are addressed by seeing how various cause lawyer qualities are exhibited by a range of attorneys involved in anti-abortion protest regulation cases. The research suggests that reasons exist to view previously excluded attorneys through the cause lawyering lens, and to continue pursuing the cause lawyer qualities discussed here. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]

This article focuses on one court case concerning the regulation of Anti-Abortion protesting & asks: (1) Do the various actors involved in this case recognize a tension between their actions & their broader beliefs concerning the regulation of political protests? (2) If this tension is recognized, how do the actors resolve it, & if it is not recognized, why is it not? While concerned with legal consciousness & cognitive dissonance, the article is framed by broader questions concerning tolerance & the interaction of law & political passions. 2 Appendixes, 89 References. [Copyright 2005 Elsevier Ltd.]

This article catalogues and analyzes the litigating behavior of four of the leading New Christian Right Public Interest Law Firms (NCR PILFs). Consistent with the finding from judicial politics that all PILFs seek first and foremost to have policy influence, we find that most of the litigation these PILFs invest in is either explicitly or implicitly religious or mission driven. However, we also observe a trend of increased participation in secular cases by the two largest NCR PILFs in our study. Through in‐depth, qualitative content analysis of the briefs submitted in these secular cases, we show that while some of this behavior can be attributed to organizational maintenance or coalitional goals, most of this secular participation appears motivated by a desire to influence the legal rules rather than the outcome of the particular case. In doing so, this article shows how PILFs engage with an increasingly complex legal and political landscape.