Girls on the Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors

View the Table of Contents. Read Chapter One. In the wake of the Supreme Court's 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision, many states tested "Roe" by placing restrictions on abortion rights. Most states now have parental consent laws for women under age eighteen. For minors who have reason to avoid parental involvement, the Supreme Court has instituted a generally welcomed compromise that allows minors to seek authorization by a third party, usually a judge. In this groundbreaking study, Silverstein demonstrates that this compromise is fatally flawed. . . . Silverstein does an excellent job of explicating the serious problems with this compromise, concluding that it is rooted in the myth that judges can be relied on to be unbiased. . . . Silverstein has produced an important contribution to women's studies and legal practice and theory. "Publishers Weekly" Helena Silverstein's important research reveals a court system that all too often fails the most vulnerable teenagers. Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Taking on the emotionally charged issue of mandatory parental involvement in the abortion decisions of minors and judicial bypass provisions in three states, Silverstein carefully lays out and skillfully dismantles myths that sustain support for these policies. Her prose is lucid and engaging, her argument powerful and persuasive. This book is one of the best examples of a new generation of scholarship on law and legal processes. Austin Sarat, co-editor of "From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America" Silverstein develops an incisive, empirically rich, and tightly reasonedcase about how the beguiling myth of rights props up a fatally flawed public policy for pregnant minors. This is a veryoriginal, powerful, and important book that deserves to be read by a wide audience. Michael McCann, co-author of "Distorting the Law: Politics, Media, and the Litigation Crisis" Silverstein's research on the by-pass protections written into parental notification legislation reveals how and why these protections provided for pregnant minors are subverted by clumsy bureaucratic procedures and by politically driven judicial decisions. In so doing, she brings empirical evidence, conceptual sophistication and extraordinary good sense to divisive controversies over reproductive rights, legality and democracy. Stuart Scheingold, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Washington The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that states may require parental involvement in the abortion decisions of pregnant minors as long as minors have the opportunity to petition for a "bypass" of parental involvement. To date, virtually all of the 34 states that mandate parental involvement have put judges in charge of the bypass process. Individual judges are thereby responsible for deciding whether or not the minor has a legitimate basis to seek an abortion absent parental participation. In this revealing and disturbing book, Helena Silverstein presents a detailed picture of how the bypass process actually functions. Silverstein led a team of researchers who surveyed more than 200 courts designated to handle bypass cases in three states. Her research shows indisputably that laws are being routinely ignored and, when enforced, interpreted by judges in widelydivergent ways. In fact, she finds audacious acts of judicial discretion, in which judges structure bypass proceedings in a shameless and calculated effort to communicate their religious and political views and to persuade minors to carry their pregnancies to term. Her investigations uncover judicial mandates that minors receive pro-life counseling from evangelical Christian ministries, as well as the practice of appointing attorneys to represent the interests of unborn children at bypass hearings. Girls on the Stand convincingly demonstrates that safeguards promised by parental involvement laws do not exist in practice and that a legal process designed to help young women make informed decisions instead victimizes them. In making this case, the book casts doubt not only on the structure of parental involvement mandates but also on the nave faith in law that sustains them. It consciously contributes to a growing body of books aimed at debunking the popular myth that, in the land of the free, there is equal justice for all.