Judicial bypass attorneys' experiences with abortion stigma in Texas courts.

Texas requires pregnant young people under 18 (i.e., minors) seeking abortion without parental consent to go to court with an attorney to petition a judge for permission to obtain abortion. There is a lack of empirical data on the process through which abortion laws stigmatize abortion and on the actors involved. We use data from in-depth qualitative interviews with 19 attorneys who participated in a collective 800 judicial bypass cases to explore what's at stake for multiple actors within a shared social space and how interactions between those actors reproduce stigma. We extend stigma theory to explain how structural abortion restrictions produce stigma at the individual level. We find that to protect their interests in "keeping pregnant minors in," the Texas court system constrains attorneys' ability to represent minors through politicization and stigmatization; attorneys face logistical and emotional challenges, including navigating hostile or ill-informed courts, witnessing court actors humiliate their clients without means of recourse, and experiencing stigma themselves. Although what's most at stake for their clients becomes most at stake for attorneys- helping young people obtain a judicial bypass so they can access abortion and protecting them from humiliation and trauma- they must reconcile their own violation of norms stigmatizing abortion with their consciences' motivation to represent bypass clients and protect their professional identity and career advancement from being "tainted" by taking judicial bypass cases. In order to protect what is at stake for their clients in the context of the highly stigmatized Texas courts, attorneys rationally make trade-offs that protect some stakes while undermining others. Moreover, attorneys' management of experienced stigma and their violation of norms stigmatizing abortion leads some to reproduce abortion stigma in their interactions with minors.

Adolescents Obtaining Abortion Without Parental Consent: Their Reasons and Experiences of Social Support.

CONTEXT: Most states require adolescents younger than 18 to involve a parent prior to obtaining an abortion, yet little is known about adolescents' reasons for choosing abortion or the social support received by those who seek judicial bypass of parental consent for abortion. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 individuals aged 16-19 who sought judicial bypass in Texas between 2015 and 2016 to explore why they chose to get an abortion, who they involved in their decision and what their experiences of social support were. Data were analyzed thematically using stigma and social support theories. RESULTS: Participants researched their pregnancy options and involved others in their decisions. They chose abortion because parenting would limit their futures, and they believed they could not provide a child with all of her or his needs. Anticipated stigma motivated participants to keep their decision private, although they desired emotional and material support. Not all male partners agreed with adolescents' decisions to seek an abortion, and agreement by some males did not guarantee emotional or material support; some young women described their partners' giving them the "freedom" to make the decision as avoiding responsibility. After a disclosure of their abortion decision, some participants experienced enacted stigma, including shame and emotional abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Abortion stigma influences adolescents' disclosure of their abortion decisions and limits their social support. Fears of disclosing their pregnancies and abortion decisions are justified, and policymakers should consider how laws requiring parental notification may harm adolescents. Further research is needed on adolescents' experiences with abortion stigma.

Young Women's Experiences Obtaining Judicial Bypass for Abortion in Texas.

PURPOSE: Like many states, Texas requires parental consent for adolescents under 18 to access abortion care. Adolescents who cannot obtain parental consent can try to obtain a judicial bypass of parental consent through the court system. Little is known about adolescents' experiences with the judicial bypass process. Working with Jane's Due Process, an organization providing legal representation for adolescents, we explored adolescents' experiences with the judicial bypass process. METHODS: We conducted phone interviews with 20 adolescents, 16-19 years old in Texas between September and December 2016 about their experiences trying to obtain a judicial bypass. Data analysis included inductive and deductive coding based on theories about engaging with the court system and stigma regarding abortion and adolescent sexuality. RESULTS: In addition to unpredictability and logistic burdens such as finding time away from school and arranging transportation, participants described the bypass process as "intimidating" and "scary" and described judges and guardians-ad-litem who shamed them, "preached" at them, and discredited evidence of their maturity. Data suggest adolescents internalize stigma and trauma they experienced through rationalizing both the need for the bypass process and disrespectful treatment by authority figures. CONCLUSIONS: We found the bypass process functions as a form of punishment and allows state actors to humiliate adolescents for their personal decisions. The bypass process was implemented to protect adolescents from alleged negative emotional consequences of abortion, yet our results suggest the bypass process itself causes emotional harm through unpredictability and humiliation. Despite participants' resilience, the process may have negative consequences for adolescent health.