ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2021
Judicial bypass attorneys' experiences with abortion stigma in Texas courts.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review of Barriers to Accessing Abortions among Adolescents in the United States.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2026Article
- Use of Judicial Bypass of Mandatory Parental Consent to Access Abortion and Judicial Bypass Denials, Florida and Texas, 2018-2021.American journal of public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.