What is *Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present* about?

Mary Ziegler’s book traces the legal and political evolution of abortion rights in the U.S. from the 1973 *Roe v. Wade* decision to modern debates. It examines how arguments shifted from constitutional rights claims to policy-based debates about societal costs/benefits, covering key cases like *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* and legislation such as the Hyde Amendment.

Who should read *Abortion and the Law in America*?

This book is essential for legal scholars, policymakers, and readers interested in reproductive rights history. It offers depth for those analyzing judicial strategies, social movement dynamics, or the intersection of abortion with broader issues like healthcare access and religious liberty.

How does Mary Ziegler challenge the narrative of abortion rights as a clash of absolutes?

Ziegler argues the debate extends beyond “pro-choice vs. pro-life” rights claims. She highlights how both sides increasingly framed abortion through policy impacts—e.g., its effects on women’s health, racial disparities, or family structures—which deepened polarization by disputing basic facts about the procedure’s consequences.

What role does the Hyde Amendment play in Ziegler’s analysis?

The Hyde Amendment, which barred federal funding for abortions, marked a pivotal shift. Ziegler shows how it galvanized pro-choice advocates to emphasize abortion’s socioeconomic necessity while shaping pro-life strategies to target incremental restrictions rather than immediate *Roe* reversal.

How does Ziegler address the *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* decision?

*Casey* (1992) upheld *Roe* but allowed states to impose restrictions pre-viability. Ziegler analyzes how this decision pushed activists toward state-level battles and intensified disagreements over abortion’s societal role, particularly its links to gender equality and family dynamics.

What does the book say about the “partial-birth abortion” debate?

Ziegler explores how the 2003 federal ban on “partial-birth abortion” reflected broader conflicts over medical authority. Pro-choice groups framed the ban as eroding trust in healthcare, while pro-life advocates used it to question abortion’s moral legitimacy, further polarizing discourse.

How does Ziegler connect abortion debates to religious liberty?

The book ties abortion to conflicts like the *Burwell v. Hobby Lobby* case, where religious objections to contraceptive coverage intersected with anti-abortion advocacy. Ziegler argues these battles expanded the debate’s scope to include visions of moral governance.

What critiques does Ziegler present about the Supreme Court’s role in abortion politics?

While some blame the Court for polarizing abortion debates, Ziegler emphasizes activists’ agency. She details how both sides developed legal strategies that often bypassed courts, focusing instead on state legislation, public persuasion, and electoral politics.

美国堕胎史

从罗诉韦德案至今的法律史

玛丽·齐格勒

3.95(132 Reviews)

《美国堕胎史》概述

玛丽·齐格勒（Mary Ziegler）具有里程碑意义的法律史研究揭示了堕胎辩论是如何从权利转向政策成本的，从而加深了美国的两极分化。在罗诉韦德案（Roe）可能被推翻的背景下，该著作被学者们誉为“必读之作”，它阐明了相互竞争的社会愿景——而不仅仅是宪法论点——是如何驱动这场美国最具分裂性的文化之争的。

选择讲述方式

一本书，多种聆听方式。

来自《美国堕胎史》的相同理念。选择适合你的声音、深度和节奏，随时切换。

第 1 章

The Battle for America's Abortion Laws: A Constitutional Tug-of-War

When Mary Ziegler's "Abortion and the Law in America" hit bookshelves, it quickly became required reading for anyone seeking to understand one of America's most intractable conflicts. The book cuts through simplistic narratives to reveal how the abortion debate evolved from a clash of absolute rights into a complex battle over policy costs and benefits. Ziegler's work has been praised by legal scholars across the political spectrum, with Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman calling it "the definitive account of how abortion rights jurisprudence has developed." The book's timing proved prescient-published shortly before the Supreme Court's seismic Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, it offers crucial historical context for understanding how America reached this pivotal moment. As abortion continues to shape electoral politics and state legislation, Ziegler's insights have become essential for grasping why this issue remains so deeply divisive despite decades of legal battles.

第 2 章

From Rights to Consequences: The Evolution of Abortion Arguments

The abortion debate wasn't always framed as a battle over incremental restrictions and policy outcomes. Following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-abortion movement initially focused on passing a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outright. When this effort stalled in the mid-1970s, organizations like the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Americans United for Life (AUL) pivoted to a strategy of incremental restrictions. This shift required different justifications-rather than arguing solely about fetal rights, they began emphasizing how restrictions would benefit women, parents, and taxpayers. The Hyde Amendment, which banned federal funding for most abortions, exemplified this strategic pivot. Supporters framed it not as protecting fetal life but as respecting "taxpayer conscience." Senator Joe Biden, then a young Catholic Democrat, urged colleagues to "be consistent, and keep the federal government out of this issue," while Senator John Pastore questioned why taxpayers' money should be "used and abused" for procedures they morally opposed. Meanwhile, abortion-rights organizations initially believed the Supreme Court would protect them from these incremental restrictions. When the Court upheld funding bans in Maher v. Roe (1977) and Harris v. McRae (1980), these groups were forced to develop new strategies. Organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood began emphasizing how abortion benefited women's equality and health, particularly for marginalized populations. By the 1980s, with Ronald Reagan's election, anti-abortion groups abandoned constitutional amendment efforts entirely, focusing instead on changing the Supreme Court's composition while pursuing incremental restrictions. This dual approach required them to develop increasingly sophisticated arguments about abortion's alleged costs to women's health, family structures, and societal well-being-arguments that would eventually reshape constitutional doctrine itself. The evolution from rights-based to consequences-based arguments didn't deescalate the conflict as some had hoped. Instead, it created new battlegrounds where opposing sides developed fundamentally different understandings about basic facts regarding abortion's effects on women, families, and society.

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

轻松跟读，《美国堕胎史》中的每个词都会随音频实时高亮。

第 3 章

The Clinic Battleground: Access, Violence, and Medical Authority

As the abortion conflict evolved, the physical spaces where abortions occurred became increasingly contested. After Roe, abortion-rights supporters focused on ensuring women could actually access services. By 1973, no doctors performed abortions in Mississippi or Louisiana, and as late as 1975, only one in nine secular hospitals offered the procedure. Access issues intersected with racial politics, as non-white women remained more likely to have illegal abortions and die as a result. The 1990s saw an escalation in clinic violence, with organizations like Operation Rescue conducting massive blockades and more extreme actors committing arson, bombings, and even murder. Dr. David Gunn's 1993 murder outside his Florida clinic and Dr. George Tiller's 2009 assassination while attending church represented the violent extreme of anti-abortion activism. These attacks prompted legislation like the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which criminalized physical obstruction of reproductive health facilities. In defending the law, abortion-rights supporters emphasized that clinics provided essential healthcare services beyond abortion. This framing reflected a broader strategy of positioning abortion as a fundamental component of women's healthcare. Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists increasingly questioned medical authorities' credibility on abortion. When established organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defended abortion access, opponents formed alternative medical organizations like the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT). These groups claimed mainstream medical organizations concealed the truth about abortion's risks for political reasons. Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) also evolved during this period, transforming from religious counseling centers into medical-appearing facilities. Organizations like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates helped CPCs adopt medical models, including offering ultrasounds and pregnancy testing. This medicalization strategy reflected the growing importance of health-based arguments in abortion politics. The battle over who constituted legitimate medical authority intensified during debates about "partial-birth abortion" (the medical term is intact dilation and extraction or D&X). Anti-abortion groups effectively portrayed the procedure as brutal and unnecessary, while abortion-rights supporters argued that politicians should defer to physicians' medical judgment. This controversy revealed how deeply the abortion debate had become entangled with questions about scientific expertise and authority.

第 4 章

The Supreme Court's Shifting Standards: From Roe to Casey to Gonzales

The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence has undergone dramatic transformations since Roe v. Wade. The original 1973 decision established a trimester framework: during the first trimester, states could impose minimal regulations; during the second trimester, they could regulate to protect women's health; and after viability, they could protect fetal life. This approach gave physicians significant discretion in early pregnancy while allowing greater state intervention later. By the late 1980s, with Reagan's appointees on the bench, many expected the Court to overturn Roe entirely. In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), a fractured Court upheld Missouri's restrictions without explicitly overturning Roe, suggesting five justices were highly skeptical of abortion rights. Justice Scalia explicitly called for Roe's reversal, while Justice O'Connor proposed an "undue burden" standard that would permit far more restrictions. The pivotal Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision in 1992 surprised observers by preserving what the plurality called Roe's "essential holding"-that women have a constitutional right to end pregnancies before viability. However, Casey discarded the trimester framework in favor of the undue burden standard, which prohibited regulations with the "purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Casey's reasoning reflected how arguments about abortion's consequences had reshaped constitutional discourse. The Court preserved abortion rights partly by acknowledging how legal abortion had helped women achieve more equal citizenship: "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." The undue burden standard proved malleable, allowing the Court to uphold most of Pennsylvania's restrictions while striking down a spousal notification requirement based on evidence of domestic violence. This approach invited litigants to present evidence about specific regulations' costs and benefits, making factual disputes central to constitutional analysis. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court further transformed abortion jurisprudence by upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act despite its lack of a health exception. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion deferred to Congress on disputed medical questions, holding that legislators had "wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty." The Court also accepted the government's interest in preventing women's potential regret, citing amicus briefs from women who regretted their abortions despite acknowledging "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon." This evolution from Roe to Casey to Gonzales reflected broader shifts in how both movements framed abortion. As arguments increasingly focused on abortion's effects rather than abstract rights, the Court's analysis similarly centered on weighing costs and benefits-with justices often reaching different conclusions based on which evidence they found credible.

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

每日获取新洞见，探索 10 万+ 条课程内容
文字实时高亮，与音频同步
保存你的书库，在所有设备上随时访问

第 5 章

The Family at the Center: Parental and Spousal Involvement Laws

Almost immediately after Roe, anti-abortion advocates proposed laws requiring husband and parental involvement in abortion decisions. These laws resonated with Americans anxious about rapid family changes-the divorce rate had climbed dramatically following no-fault divorce laws, opposition to premarital sex was declining, gay and lesbian rights were becoming more visible, and women's workforce participation had increased significantly. The Supreme Court addressed family involvement laws in several cases. In Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976), the Court struck down both spousal consent and parental consent requirements. However, Bellotti v. Baird II (1979) established that states could require parental consent if they provided a judicial bypass option allowing minors to prove their maturity or that abortion served their best interests. By the late 1980s, major anti-abortion groups promoted parental involvement laws partly to strengthen their relationship with the Republican Party. These laws offered a politically viable strategy that enjoyed broader public support than outright abortion bans. Between 1974 and 1985, abortion opponents successfully promoted twenty-three such laws, making this one of their most effective campaigns. Abortion-rights attorneys faced significant challenges when contesting parental involvement laws. The ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project argued in Hodgson v. Minnesota that requiring minors to notify both parents before obtaining an abortion could endanger those from abusive families. They presented testimony about violence, incest, and other family dysfunctions that made notification dangerous. Anti-abortion attorneys also pursued fathers' rights cases as potential vehicles for overturning Roe. Unlike parental involvement litigation, these cases more directly challenged abortion rights by arguing that men's interests in potential fatherhood could outweigh women's reproductive decisions. Attorneys James Bopp and Richard Coleson strategically portrayed women seeking abortions negatively while lauding men who wanted to marry and provide for their children. Casey ultimately struck down Pennsylvania's spousal notification requirement, with the Court citing evidence of domestic violence: "we must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion." The Court rejected the law's "view of marriage... repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution." The debate over family involvement laws revealed how both sides increasingly framed their arguments around competing visions of family relationships and gender roles. Anti-abortion advocates emphasized traditional family authority and parental rights, while abortion-rights supporters focused on family dysfunction, domestic violence, and women's autonomy within marriage.

第 6 章

Abortion and Healthcare: The Battle Over Medical Authority

By the early 1990s, both sides turned more attention to health-based arguments as healthcare reform gained bipartisan support. When Clinton won the presidency, speculation began about his reform plan, which reportedly would include abortion coverage. Casey had made it urgent for abortion-rights supporters to explain how abortion helped women achieve equal citizenship. Health-based arguments helped answer how regulations that made abortion harder to access harmed women's equality by damaging their health. With the Freedom of Choice Act campaign faltering due to internal conflicts, abortion-rights groups developed a new platform focusing on national healthcare reform, medical abortion legalization, Medicaid funding restoration, and clinic access protection. Abortion-rights supporters sought new ways to address provider shortages. The National Abortion Federation launched the Access Initiative Project to encourage medical school abortion training, while Planned Parenthood of New York offered its own training program. These efforts aimed to reestablish abortion as delivering important health benefits for women. Meanwhile, anti-abortion activists increasingly promoted research suggesting links between abortion and breast cancer, with organizations like the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute founded to document this connection. Joel Brind, a biochemist who opposed abortion, became a key figure in this campaign. Americans United for Life developed model legislation requiring abortion providers to inform women about the purported breast cancer risk. While some studies suggested a possible connection, other research found no significant link, and major health organizations including the World Health Organization and National Cancer Institute rejected the connection. Crisis pregnancy centers increasingly transformed themselves into medical clinics during this period, with organizations like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates helping them adopt medical models. This shift reflected the growing importance of medical authority in abortion politics, as both sides sought to claim scientific legitimacy for their positions. The healthcare framing of abortion reached its apex during debates over the Affordable Care Act. Anti-abortion legislators like Representatives Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts fought to prevent federal funding of abortion in the bill, eventually settling for an executive order barring such funding. The contraceptive mandate later became another flashpoint, with religious organizations and businesses objecting to covering contraceptives they considered abortifacients. By positioning abortion as either essential healthcare or a dangerous procedure, both movements sought to influence how Americans understood the medical aspects of abortion. This strategy shifted the debate from abstract rights to concrete questions about who should determine medical standards and evaluate health risks-physicians, patients, legislators, or courts.

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

轻松跟读，《美国堕胎史》中的每个词都会随音频实时高亮。

第 7 章

The Partial-Birth Abortion Controversy: Visual Politics and Scientific Authority

The partial-birth abortion debate centered on who had the authority to determine the procedure's costs and benefits. After Republicans gained a House majority in 1994, anti-abortion lobbyists promoted a ban on dilation and extraction (D&X), a procedure they labeled "partial-birth abortion." The ensuing debate revealed deep divisions about the trustworthiness of medical organizations, the media, and politicians in matters of scientific evidence. Pro-lifers argued the procedure was visually disturbing enough that ordinary Americans could judge it without expert input. Representative Charles Canady and Barbara Vucanovich sponsored a bill banning D&X in 1995, with witnesses like nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer urging lawmakers to "be marched into an operating room" to see an abortion firsthand. Meanwhile, abortion-rights supporters highlighted women like Colleen Costello who had undergone D&X after learning her unborn daughter had a fatal neurological disease. "We are the ones who know," Costello testified, arguing that women who benefited from the procedure should decide its fate. Though Congress passed the ban in December 1995, Clinton vetoed it in April 1996 because it lacked a health exception. NRLC argued any health exception would effectively create "partial-birth abortion on demand." Despite failing to override Clinton's veto, pro-lifers continued pushing for the ban, encouraged by polls showing strong public support for prohibiting the procedure. The partial-birth abortion debate reflected broader conflicts about science, politics, and expertise in the 1990s. Like climate change skeptics and anti-vaccine activists, abortion opponents questioned the credibility of established scientific authorities. When Ron Fitzsimmons, a lobbyist for independent abortion clinics, admitted he had "lied through his teeth" about D&X frequency, it damaged abortion-rights groups' credibility. While he had previously claimed only a few hundred procedures occurred annually, he later suggested thousands were performed, especially in the second trimester. In Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban. Justice Breyer, writing for the majority, emphasized that given the "division of medical opinion," the Constitution required a health exception because there was "significant likelihood" that D&X might be safer in certain circumstances. However, after George W. Bush's election and his appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Congress passed a similar federal ban. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the Court upheld the law, with Justice Kennedy's majority opinion deferring to Congress on medical disagreements. The Court held that lawmakers had "wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty." This controversy transformed abortion politics by establishing that when scientific evidence was contested, courts might defer to legislators rather than medical experts. This approach created incentives for both sides to generate uncertainty about abortion's effects, rather than seeking consensus on basic facts.

第 8 章

Religious Liberty and the War on Women: Modern Framing Strategies

As the abortion debate entered the 21st century, both sides developed new framing strategies to mobilize supporters. After the 2010 Tea Party wave, state legislatures passed a record number of abortion restrictions. The Tea Party movement, fueled by anger over the Affordable Care Act, helped elect overwhelmingly pro-life legislators. Groups like the Susan B. Anthony List, which had grown from spending $200,000 in 1998 to having a $7 million budget by 2010, increasingly aligned with Republicans to pass new restrictions. Abortion-rights groups used attacks on Planned Parenthood to reframe their message around a "war on women," connecting abortion access to both affordable healthcare and equality. This strategy proved effective-after Congress proposed defunding Planned Parenthood, the organization saw its Facebook following surge by 992 percent and online donations increase by 500 percent. In the 2012 election, nearly $17 million poured into advertising highlighting this narrative, with EMILY's List becoming the highest-spending single-issue group. The religious freedom debate intensified when the Affordable Care Act mandated coverage of female contraceptives without co-pays. While churches were exempt, religious universities, hospitals, and for-profit businesses were not. Some employers refused to subsidize what they viewed as abortion-inducing drugs, despite medical organizations like ACOG disagreeing with this classification. Major anti-abortion groups like AUL and NRLC, which had historically avoided contraception issues, now condemned the mandate. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with religious businesses in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), ruling that closely-held corporations could claim religious exemptions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Critics worried this defined religious conscience too broadly, while religious organizations continued challenging even the exemption process in cases like Zubik v. Burwell (2016). After 2010, abortion-rights groups worked to destigmatize abortion while advancing a reproductive justice framework. The #ShoutYourAbortion campaign began when Amelia Bonow shared her positive abortion experience, which quickly gained over 100,000 mentions in 24 hours with support from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Anti-abortion lawmakers condemned it as "macabre," creating counter-hashtags like #ShoutYourAdoption. Despite increasing polarization, abortion rates declined to 14.6 per 1,000 women by 2014-the lowest since 1973. This decline occurred alongside a surge in restrictions, with 288 new abortion laws (27% of all restrictions since Roe) passed between 2010 and 2016. The Trump administration dramatically changed Title X regulations, barring abortion referrals and requiring physical separation of abortion services from family planning practices. This caused Planned Parenthood to withdraw from Title X, costing them $60 million annually, while crisis pregnancy centers gained federal support. The Supreme Court further helped CPCs in NIFLA v. Becerra by striking down a California law requiring disclosures about abortion availability and medical licensure status.

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

每日获取新洞见，探索 10 万+ 条课程内容
文字实时高亮，与音频同步
保存你的书库，在所有设备上随时访问

第 9 章

The Road to Dobbs: Polarization Without Resolution

When Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018, President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace him. Despite sexual assault allegations from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Republicans confirmed Kavanaugh, seemingly creating an anti-Roe majority. The nomination intensified gender-based political divisions, with abortion-rights supporters increasingly positioning themselves as women's defenders. Following Kavanaugh's confirmation, pro-life absolutists pushed for more aggressive challenges to Roe. Some promoted "heartbeat bills" banning abortion after fetal cardiac activity could be detected (around six weeks), while others defended mandatory counseling laws to screen for coercion. By 2019, numerous states passed extreme abortion restrictions, while pro-choice states enacted broad protections for abortion rights. Many commentators have speculated that overturning Roe might eventually deescalate the abortion conflict. Both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia argued that by recognizing a constitutional abortion right, the Court interrupted potential state-level compromises and radicalized opponents who felt disenfranchised. However, recent history suggests this view is deeply flawed. The abortion conflict became polarized well before Roe, and a focus on incremental restrictions has done nothing to reduce bitterness. Opposing sides still hold irreconcilable constitutional beliefs, and debates about costs and benefits have created new sources of disagreement. Those on either side disagree about fundamental issues including teen independence, poverty assistance, healthcare delivery, and who can fairly measure abortion's impacts. Neither movement has achieved lasting victory in the abortion debate. Pro-lifers have pursued overturning Roe but ultimately want recognition of a right to life that would criminalize most abortions. Abortion-rights supporters have witnessed steady erosion of constitutional protections, with women in many states already facing extremely limited access. The conflict will likely continue regardless of Roe's fate, with battles shifting to state legislatures. The growing divide reflects broader political polarization, but both movements have strategically profited from taking extreme positions to fundraise and rally their bases. We can no longer blame the Supreme Court exclusively for the impasse. The abortion debate will continue shaping national conversations about healthcare, poverty, government's role, family structure, and scientific expertise-telling a story about what kind of country America has been and will become.

第 10 章

Beyond Constitutional Battlegrounds: The Future of Abortion Politics

The abortion debate has never been static but rather remarkably fluid and unpredictable. Battles over incremental restrictions have consistently reflected complex beliefs about issues only tangentially related to abortion, including poverty, personal responsibility, welfare, maternity, family structure, healthcare, and media trustworthiness. Though most Americans remain conflicted about abortion itself, the meaning of being "pro-life" or "pro-choice" has changed dramatically over time, as have the restrictions dominating debate. Since 1973, the abortion conflict has evolved from a clash between absolute rights to include battles over policy costs and benefits. This transformation hasn't created compromise but instead revealed deeper divisions about welfare, family structure, scientific authority, and the boundary between fact and opinion-mirroring broader national debates about America's present and future. As abortion returns to state legislatures following the Dobbs decision, Americans will continue debating not just whether abortion should be legal but what kind of society we want to create. The conflict has never been solely about constitutional interpretation but about fundamental questions of gender equality, family structure, religious liberty, and who deserves to make decisions about women's bodies and lives. Mary Ziegler's comprehensive history reminds us that the abortion debate's complexity reflects America's own contradictions and divisions. By understanding how the conflict has evolved, we might begin to recognize that resolving it requires addressing not just constitutional questions but the deeper social, economic, and cultural factors that have made abortion such a persistent flashpoint in American politics.

★★★★★

你已读完《美国堕胎史》

深受 100 万+ 学习者喜爱

“坚持使用 23 天了，我每天都会打开它。它现在已经成为我的日常习惯。”

jayallen

《美国堕胎史》核心主题

constitutional jurisprudence
incremental legislative strategy
reproductive healthcare access
medical authority disputes
abortion clinic violence

《美国堕胎史》经典语录

Keep the federal government out of this issue.
The abortion debate wasn't always framed as a battle over incremental restrictions.
The evolution from rights-based to consequences-based arguments didn't deescalate the conflict.
Access issues intersected with racial politics.
The book cuts through simplistic narratives.

《美国堕胎史》主要人物

Mary ZieglerAuthor and legal historian of abortion law
Joe BidenSenator who supported the Hyde Amendment
Dr. David GunnDoctor murdered outside his Florida clinic
Dr. George TillerDoctor assassinated while attending church
John PastoreSenator who questioned federal funding of abortion

关于作者

Mary Ziegler 是《美国堕胎与法律：从罗伊诉韦德案到现在的法律史》（Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present）一书的作者，也是美国生殖权利领域卓越的法律历史学家和学者。作为加州大学戴维斯分校（UC Davis）的马丁·路德·金法学教授以及 2023-2024 年度古根海姆学者（Guggenheim Fellow），Ziegler 拥有哈佛大学和哈佛法学院的学位。她的著作深入剖析了堕胎法、宪法治理与社会运动之间复杂的相互作用，本书则对“罗伊案”后的法律斗争如何改变美国民主进行了权威性的阐述。

Ziegler 的专业见解在媒体和学术界广受认可，她定期为《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、CNN 和 NPR 撰稿。她还撰写了多部具有影响力的著作，如《生命之金：反堕胎运动与共和党建制派的垮台》（Dollars for Life: The Antiabortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican Establishment）以及《罗伊案：一个国家痴迷的历史》（Roe: The History of a National Obsession），这些作品分析了堕胎法理学的文化和政治遗产。

她早期的获奖著作《罗伊案之后：堕胎辩论中遗失的历史》（After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate）曾荣获哈佛大学出版社托马斯·J·威尔逊奖（Thomas J. Wilson Prize）。作为一名备受青睐的评论员，Ziegler 曾为政策制定者提供建议并在全球范围内发表演讲，巩固了她作为生殖正义领域领军人物的地位。

下载《美国堕胎史》摘要

免费获取《美国堕胎史》摘要的 PDF 或 EPUB 版本。可打印或随时离线阅读。

用户还喜欢

Abortion

Jessica Valenti

People's History of the United States

Howard Zinn

Women and Power: A Manifesto

Mary Beard

Ask Me about My Uterus

Abby Norman

The Gun Debate

Philip J. Cook and Kristin A. Goss

Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Mary Wollstonecraft

Reckoning

Mary L. Trump

Power Shift

Sally Armstrong

关于本书的常见问题

发现更多

学习计划

American history

This comprehensive survey of American history provides essential context for understanding current political, social, and cultural debates in the United States. It's ideal for students, professionals working in American contexts, global citizens seeking to understand U.S. influence, or anyone wanting to grasp how historical forces continue to shape contemporary American society and its role in the world.

4 h 43 m•4 章节

学习计划

History of USA

This comprehensive survey of American history is essential for anyone seeking to understand the forces that shaped the United States and continue to influence global politics today. Perfect for students, educators, professionals working in policy or international relations, and engaged citizens who want to contextualize current events through historical understanding.

3 h 42 m•4 章节

学习计划

The Invisible Empire's Political Echoes

This plan is essential for understanding how historical extremist movements shaped the American political landscape. It is ideal for history students, political science enthusiasts, and anyone seeking to understand the sociological roots of modern partisan divides.

1 h 12 m•3 章节

学习计划

Law, Power, and the Feminist Project

This learning plan provides a critical foundation for understanding how legal systems both enforce and dismantle gender-based hierarchies. It is essential for law students, activists, and social science scholars seeking to master the evolution of feminist legal theory and its intersectional future.

2 h•4 章节

学习计划

The Female Eunuch: Reclaiming Vitality

This plan is essential for anyone seeking to understand the radical roots of modern feminism and the social construction of gender. It is ideal for students of sociology, gender studies, or readers looking to reclaim their personal autonomy from societal expectations.

1 h 12 m•3 章节

学习计划

The Evolution of the Feminine Principle

This plan provides a critical framework for understanding how the social status of women was systematically reshaped from prehistory to the digital age. It is ideal for students of sociology, history, and media studies seeking to understand the roots of gender inequality.

1 h 45 m•3 章节

学习计划

Republican influence

This learning plan provides essential context for understanding one of America's two major political parties and its profound impact on contemporary governance, policy, and culture. It's valuable for students of political science, journalists, policy professionals, educators, and engaged citizens seeking to comprehend the ideological evolution and strategic methods that have shaped Republican influence on American institutions and public life.

4 h 48 m•4 章节

学习计划

Power, Gender, and the State

This learning plan is essential for students and professionals seeking to understand how historical political structures perpetuate inequality. It provides a critical lens for those in policy, law, or sociology to dismantle systemic biases and build more inclusive democratic futures.

2 h•4 章节

由哥伦比亚大学校友在旧金山创建

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

查看更多网络上关于 BeFreed 的讨论

由哥伦比亚大学校友在旧金山创建

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

查看更多网络上关于 BeFreed 的讨论

开启你的学习之旅，就是现在

第 7 章

美国堕胎史

概述《美国堕胎史》概述

一本书，多种聆听方式。

The Battle for America's Abortion Laws: A Constitutional Tug-of-War

From Rights to Consequences: The Evolution of Abortion Arguments

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

The Clinic Battleground: Access, Violence, and Medical Authority

The Supreme Court's Shifting Standards: From Roe to Casey to Gonzales

从 《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

The Family at the Center: Parental and Spousal Involvement Laws

Abortion and Healthcare: The Battle Over Medical Authority

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

The Partial-Birth Abortion Controversy: Visual Politics and Scientific Authority

Religious Liberty and the War on Women: Modern Framing Strategies

从 《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

The Road to Dobbs: Polarization Without Resolution

Beyond Constitutional Battlegrounds: The Future of Abortion Politics

你已读完 《美国堕胎史》

《美国堕胎史》核心主题

《美国堕胎史》经典语录

《美国堕胎史》主要人物

关于作者

下载《美国堕胎史》摘要

用户还喜欢

关于本书的常见问题

What is Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present about?

Who should read Abortion and the Law in America?

How does Mary Ziegler challenge the narrative of abortion rights as a clash of absolutes?

What role does the Hyde Amendment play in Ziegler’s analysis?

发现更多

1,000,000+ curious minds.

1,000,000+ curious minds.

一本书，多种聆听方式。

The Battle for America's Abortion Laws: A Constitutional Tug-of-War

From Rights to Consequences: The Evolution of Abortion Arguments

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

The Clinic Battleground: Access, Violence, and Medical Authority

The Supreme Court's Shifting Standards: From Roe to Casey to Gonzales

从 《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

The Family at the Center: Parental and Spousal Involvement Laws

Abortion and Healthcare: The Battle Over Medical Authority

边听边看，每个词都清晰呈现

The Partial-Birth Abortion Controversy: Visual Politics and Scientific Authority

Religious Liberty and the War on Women: Modern Framing Strategies

从 《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

The Road to Dobbs: Polarization Without Resolution

Beyond Constitutional Battlegrounds: The Future of Abortion Politics

你已读完 《美国堕胎史》

用户还喜欢

发现更多

《美国堕胎史》概述

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

你已读完《美国堕胎史》

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

从《美国堕胎史》中收获更多

你已读完《美国堕胎史》