En matière d'accès à l'avortement, est-ce que les États-Unis rencontrent leurs obligations internationales en vertu du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques? (In Terms of Access to Abortion, Does the United States Meet Its International Obligations Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Aux Etats-Unis, l’acces a l’avortement demeure un enjeu politique hautement controverse. Depuis 2010, on assiste a une hausse significative du nombre de restrictions en limitant l’acces, et ce, dans plusieurs Etats, malgre le fait que la Cour supreme americaine definisse cet acces a l’avortement comme un droit constitutionnel depuis le jugement Roe v. Wade rendu en 1973. Le present article aborde le sujet de l’acces a l’avortement aux Etats-Unis sous l’angle du droit international public. Precisement, il sera question de demontrer pourquoi, en matiere d’acces a l’avortement, les Etats-Unis ne respectent pas leurs obligations en vertu du Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques (PIDCP) qu’ils ont ratifie en 1992. Afin de determiner les obligations des Etats ayant ratifie le PIDCP, les protections que confere ce dernier en matiere d’acces a l’avortement seront ensuite illustrees a travers une analyse de la « jurisprudence » du Comite des droits de l’homme. L’acces a l’avortement aux Etats-Unis sera ensuite examine. Pour ce faire, l’evolution et l’etat actuel de la jurisprudence de la Cour supreme en la matiere seront analyses. La realite sur le terrain le sera egalement afin de saisir l’effet reel des restrictions legales limitant l’acces. La situation politico-juridique entourant la composition de la Cour supreme sera exposee afin de mettre en lumiere les nuances politiques relatives a l’avortement aux Etats-Unis. English Abstract: In the United States, abortion is still a highly polarizing issue. Since 2010, there has been a significant increase in the number of legal restrictions on abortion in several states despite the fact that access to abortion has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right in 1973 in the decision Roe v. Wade. However, this article goes beyond the United States’ domestic law. Rather, it addresses access to abortion in the United States from a different angle which is public international law. Precisely, the article will demonstrate why, in terms of access to abortion, the United States does not respect its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which they ratified in 1992. In order to determine the obligations of the States that have ratified the ICCPR, the protections related to access to abortion that the Covenant provides will then be illustrated through an analysis of the “jurisprudence” of the Human Rights Committee. Access to abortion in the United States will then be examined. To this end, the evolution and current state of the Supreme Court of the United States’ jurisprudence on access to abortion will be analyzed. The reality on the ground will also be analyzed to capture the real effects of legal restrictions limiting access. The current political situation regarding the Supreme Court’s composition will be exposed in order to highlight the political nuances beyond the legal aspect regarding abortion in the United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".