Indirect restrictions demobilize supporters of abortion rights
通过实验发现，相比直接禁止，间接限制（如削减资金）让支持堕胎权的人反对程度更低，即使影响人数相同，这解释了间接政策如何削弱政治对手的动员力。
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.