• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • Faculty/ Researcher Works
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of TUScholarShareCommunitiesDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenresThis CollectionDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenres

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Help

    AboutPeoplePoliciesHelp for DepositorsData DepositFAQs

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Comparative Pragmatism

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    Rebouche-JournalArticle-2012-01.pdf
    Size:
    666.9Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Genre
    Journal article
    Date
    2012
    Author
    Rebouché, Rachel
    Permanent link to this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/6218
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/6200
    Abstract
    Over the past decade, high courts in many countries have either struck down statutes criminalizing abortion or upheld recently passed statutes expanding legal grounds for abortion. These courts have employed comparative analysis to position their decisions on a spectrum of transnational approaches to abortion law. The spectrum, as these courts describe it, ranges from unrestricted abortion, purportedly the approach of the United States under Roe v. Wade, to a broad prohibition on abortion, purportedly the approach of Germany under decisions of its Federal Constitutional Court. This comparative method, first identified by constitutional law scholars in the late 1970s and 1980s, relies on oversimplified and sometimes inaccurate portrayals of the law and of practice. Yet three decades later, this method continues to circulate among courts all over the world. This article displaces the myth that comparative experience fits along a bi-directional spectrum by introducing a model better tailored to the realities of law and practice — comparative pragmatism. The article begins by critiquing recent decisions by courts in Colombia, South Africa, Portugal, and Mexico that have used comparative law to justify their decisions as part of a modern and universal conversation. By employing the prevailing comparative method, however, these courts not only misrepresent U.S. and German law, they look to comparators that are over thirty-years old and are exclusively from the global North. The article traces the courts’ methodology to a one-size-fits-all strategy embraced by women’s rights activists participating in each case. This method, however well-intentioned, blinds courts and lawmakers to local circumstances that will dictate realization of newly recognized rights. The article concludes by describing comparative pragmatism, a novel mode of comparative analysis, that draws upon public health literature and encourages contextualized reform strategies consistent with the state’s ability to implement formal rights.
    Citation
    Rachel Rebouché, Comparative Pragmatism, 72 Md. L. Rev. 85 (2012). https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol72/iss1/2
    Citation to related work
    University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
    Has part
    Maryland Law Review, Vol. 72, Issue 1 (2012)
    ADA compliance
    For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
    Collections
    Faculty/ Researcher Works

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Temple University Libraries | 1900 N. 13th Street | Philadelphia, PA 19122
    (215) 204-8212 | scholarshare@temple.edu
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.