Document Type
Article
Publication Date
12-6-2024
Abstract
State governments have created a multitude of indirect restrictions on abortion in the decades since Roe v. Wade. Here we test whether indirect restrictions demobilize abortion supporters relative to direct restrictions. We draw on research from moral psychology showing that people judge indirect offenses as less morally wrong than direct offenses, holding constant the consequences of the offenses. In two experiments, pro-choice participants answered how much they oppose a banning policy (a direct restriction), a defunding policy (an indirect restriction), or an excluding policy (the same as defunding but framed as more direct). In both experiments, pro-choice participants were less opposed to defunding than banning or excluding, even when the number of women affected was held constant. These results support the hypothesis that indirect restrictions can demobilize political opponents.
Recommended Citation
Connors, E.C., Del Ponte, A., & DeScioli, P. (2025). Indirect Restrictions Demobilize Supporters of Abortion Rights. Policy Studies Journal, 53(4), 1123-1137. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12575
Peer Reviewed
1
Copyright
Wiley
Comments
This is the accepted version of the following article:
Connors, E.C., Del Ponte, A., & DeScioli, P. (2025). Indirect Restrictions Demobilize Supporters of Abortion Rights. Policy Studies Journal, 53(4), 1123-1137.
which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12575. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.