Indirect restrictions demobilize supporters of abortion rights

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. (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic))(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)),(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic))(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)((sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic))(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic).. Los gobiernos estatales han creado una multitud de restricciones indirectas al aborto en las d & eacute;cadas transcurridas desde el caso Roe v. Wade. En este art & iacute;culo, analizamos si las restricciones indirectas desmovilizan a los partidarios del aborto, en comparaci & oacute;n con las restricciones directas. Nos basamos en investigaciones de psicolog & iacute;a moral que muestran que las personas juzgan las ofensas indirectas como menos moralmente incorrectas que las directas, manteniendo constantes las consecuencias de las ofensas. En dos experimentos, los participantes proaborto respondieron cu & aacute;nto se opon & iacute;an a una pol & iacute;tica de prohibici & oacute;n (una restricci & oacute;n directa), una pol & iacute;tica de desfinanciamiento (una restricci & oacute;n indirecta) o una pol & iacute;tica de exclusi & oacute;n (lo mismo que el desfinanciamiento, pero enmarcada como m & aacute;s directa). En ambos experimentos, los participantes proaborto se opon & iacute;an menos a la desfinanciaci & oacute;n que a la prohibici & oacute;n o la exclusi & oacute;n, incluso cuando el n & uacute;mero de mujeres afectadas se mantuvo constante. Estos resultados respaldan la hip & oacute;tesis de que las restricciones indirectas pueden desmovilizar a los oponentes pol & iacute;ticos.