Denials of Judicial Bypass Petitions for Abortion in Texas Before and After the 2016 Bypass Process Change

2001–2018

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11020197
AutoresArthur J Stevenson (0000-0001-5985-1924, Amanda Jean Stevenson is with the Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder. Kate Coleman-Minahan is with the College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. Amanda Jean Stevenson and Kate Coleman-Minahan are also with University of Colorado Population Center, Boulder, and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX. Susan Hays is with the Law Office of Susan Hays, PC, Austin.), Amanda Jean Stevenson, Kate Coleman-Minahan (0000-0001-7722-1985, Amanda Jean Stevenson is with the Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder. Kate Coleman-Minahan is with the College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. Amanda Jean Stevenson and Kate Coleman-Minahan are also with University of Colorado Population Center, Boulder, and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX. Susan Hays is with the Law Office of Susan Hays, PC, Austin.), Susan Hays (Amanda Jean Stevenson is with the Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Boulder. Kate Coleman-Minahan is with the College of Nursing, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. Amanda Jean Stevenson and Kate Coleman-Minahan are also with University of Colorado Population Center, Boulder, and the Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX. Susan Hays is with the Law Office of Susan Hays, PC, Austin.)
Ano2020
Volume110
Fascículo3
Páginas351-353
Data de publicação2020-03-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
EditoraAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.2019.305491
PMID31944836
OpenAlexW2999266300
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas4
Referências citadas7

Objectives. To estimate the percentage of Texas judicial bypass petitions for abortion denied annually from 2001 to 2018, and to assess whether that fraction changed after the state’s 2016 bypass process change. Methods. Because official statistics on Texas judicial bypass case counts and outcomes are only available for 2016 and later, we systematically reviewed monthly internal reports from Jane’s Due Process (JDP), an organization providing legal representation to pregnant minors seeking bypass from 2001 to 2018. We report numbers and percentages of JDP cases denied for 2001 to 2018 and numbers and percentages of all cases denied from official Texas statistics for 2016 to 2018 (all available years). Results. At least 1 denial occurred in 11 out of 15 years observed before the bypass law changed in Texas (percentages = 0%–6.2%). After Texas made its bypass process more restrictive, the percentage denied increased (from 2.8% in 2015 to 10.3% in 2016 among JDP cases). Conclusions. We found the greatest percentages of judicial bypass for abortion petitions denied after the policy was implemented and after the bypass process changed. Judicial bypass for abortion may expose pregnant minors to judicial veto of their abortion decision

Abortion · Denial · Political science · Pregnancy · Sociology · Veto · Demography · Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse · Law · Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions · Medicine · Psychology · Reproductive Health and Contraception