judicial consent for minors seeking marriage

These judicial bypass procedures are demeaning, onerous, and stand in the way of young people’s access to safe abortion care. Implementation of the procedures is full of logistical nightmares that push some young people through the cracks and provide no check against bias and lies. The procedures are based on unclear legal criteria which create the double standard of requiring young people seeking bypasses to be “mature” enough before they may choose to have an abortion but not have a child. Judicial bypass procedures put judges – who are not doctors, not counselors, not experts in health or youth development – in the position of making reproductive healthcare decisions for the young people before them.

As of January 2015, thirty-eight states enforce laws that require a young person under 18 to notify or obtain consent from one or both parents before she can receive abortion care.1 The Supreme Court has allowed these laws, so long as they include narrow exceptions, generally called “judicial bypass” procedures, which require minors to receive court approval to access abortion care when they do not have their parents’ knowledge or consent.

In many states people under 18 may independently consent to a range of sensitive health care services, yet those seeking safe abortion care are singled out under the law. Young people need confidential and safe access to the full range of reproductive and sexual health services – including abortion. RESULTS: Minors in Arkansas who used the courts were more likely to be 17 years of age, nonresidents of Arkansas, Hispanic, and with fewer previous pregnancies than their younger, resident, non-Hispanic White, and multigravida counterparts 7.7% of abortions to minors were obtained via a bypass in 11 states, but only 2% if Texas and Arkansas are excluded.ĬONCLUSIONS: The demographics of minors who obtain an abortion through a judicial bypass differ significantly from those who have parental consent, and there is widespread variation in the proportion of bypass cases across states.Undue Burdens for Young People Seeking Safe Abortion Care Available in format. We characterized correlates of the judicial bypass and its association with the timing of abortion. METHODS: We used individual-level data on all abortions to minors (n = 2624) performed in Arkansas from 2005 to 2014 and aggregated data from 10 additional states on abortions obtained through a judicial bypass. OBJECTIVES: To describe demographic characteristics and abortion timing of minors in Arkansas who obtained an abortion through a judicial bypass, and to contrast the frequency of judicial bypass in other states in the United States.

Judicial consent for minors seeking marriage