Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T17:01:24.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in a Post-Roe Era – ERRATUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2024

Cathleen Kaveny
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Erratum
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , First View , pp. 1
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

In the original publication of this articleReference Kaveny1, the incorrect abstract was included. The article has been updated to include the correct abstract, which is as follows:

This article considers challenges facing the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). It identifies four questions the movement must face: (1) whether to adopt a combative or conciliatory rhetorical stance; (2) how to prioritize new legislative goals; (3) how to define the limits of acceptable compromise; and (4) how to respond to Americans with ambivalent attitudes toward abortion. The article argues that each of these issues could precipitate serious division in the pro-life movement that will impact likelihood of future success.

The editorial team apologizes for the error.

References

Kaveny, C., “Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in a Post-Roe Era,” Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 51, no. 3 (2023): 618–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar