The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its position that the rights of adolescents under 18 years of age to confidential care when considering legal medical and surgical abortion therapies should be protected. Most adolescents voluntarily involve parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding pregnancy termination and should be encouraged to do so when safe and appropriate. The legal climate surrounding abortion law is rapidly becoming more restrictive and threatens to adversely impact adolescents. Mandatory parental involvement, the judicial bypass procedure, and general restrictive abortion policies pose risks to adolescents’ health by causing delays in accessing medical care, increasing volatility within a family, and limiting their pregnancy options. These harms underscore the importance of adolescents’ access to confidential abortion care. This statement presents a summary of pertinent current information related to the impact of legislation requiring mandatory parental involvement in an adolescent’s decision to obtain abortion services.

In this statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) reaffirms its position on the protection of the rights of adolescents to confidential care when considering legal medical and surgical abortion therapies. This statement presents a summary of pertinent information on the impact of restrictive abortion laws, including mandatory parental involvement, on minor adolescents. Parental involvement laws refer to state laws that require either parental notification or consent for an adolescent to receive abortion care. The judicial bypass procedure allows an adolescent to request court approval to access abortion services confidentially. The AAP supports the recommendations presented by the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association in its report on mandatory parental consent to abortion.1  This statement does not include philosophical or religious issues related to abortion because these beliefs are deeply personal. The AAP acknowledges and respects the diversity of opinions about legal abortion therapies. Although this statement supports adolescent access to confidential reproductive health care, the AAP is an advocate of strong family relationships, acknowledging that parents act in the best interests of their children, and their involvement is generally supportive and valuable. The AAP advocates for comprehensive health and sexuality education and the use of effective contraception as effective primary strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy during adolescence.2,3  Promoting adolescents’ access to confidential sexual and reproductive health care has been a longstanding objective of the AAP. Membership surveys of pediatricians, adolescent medicine specialists, and obstetricians confirm their support of this position.46 

Laws regulating abortion in the United States are increasingly restrictive, profoundly impacting the ability to receive legal abortion therapy.7  After the Roe v Wade (1973) decision, which established that an individual’s right to privacy extends to choosing abortion services, the United States Supreme Court ruled on several cases involving mandatory parental involvement and the judicial bypass process shaping minors’ rights to confidential abortion services.812  The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization likely weakens or overturns the federal right to abortion, allowing a significant number of states to immediately enforce restrictive abortion laws that were suspended during the Roe v Wade era.13,14 

Parental involvement laws generally consist of 1 of the following 2 formats: requiring the consent of one or both parent(s) before a minor adolescent’s abortion, or requiring preprocedure parental notification. Most notification laws require written parental notification from a medical provider 24 to 48 hours before the abortion.15  The majority of states require parental involvement. Most states provide a judicial bypass procedure and allow a minor to consent during a medical emergency. A minority of states waive parental involvement in situations of abuse, assault, or neglect. The Guttmacher Institute maintains an up-to-date reference on parental involvement laws accessible online.16 

The AAP, the American Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree that minors should be encouraged to discuss pregnancy with parents and/or other responsible adults and may look to health care providers to facilitate this.1,1721  However, adolescents should not be required to involve parents in the decision to obtain an abortion because legal abortion therapies are safe and most adolescents are capable of medical decision-making.1,1721  Additionally, mandating parental involvement does not promote positive family communication, potentially delays or restricts access to appropriate medical care, and creates an unsafe family atmosphere for some adolescents.22 

The health risks of legal medical and surgical abortion therapies are extremely low.23  Legal abortion therapies result in fewer deleterious sequelae for individuals compared with other possible outcomes of unwanted pregnancy.2427  Although the absolute risk of pregnancy-related mortality is low, some studies have found that adolescents experience pregnancy complications at a higher rate than adult women.28  The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion, and morbidity rates and medical complications from continuing a pregnancy are more adverse than those from abortion at all stages of gestation.2931  The complication risk of abortion procedures increases with gestational age; therefore, laws that increase the time between an adolescent seeking and receiving abortion services are not best practice.23 

Studies have found legal, first-trimester abortion to have no significant negative psychological or medical sequelae among adolescents.3241  Similarly, evaluation of abortion regret in minor adolescents receiving confidential services have found that most express satisfaction with their pregnancy decision regardless of whether they chose abortion therapy, parenting, or adoption.4244  When facing an unwanted pregnancy, regardless of the ultimate outcome, most experience a range of normal emotional reactions.45  Adverse emotional reactions after legal abortion therapies are rare; most individuals experience relief and reduced depression and distress.46  In contrast, decades of evidence support that delayed or denied care is harmful to the emotional health of individuals seeking legal abortion therapies.32,36,37 

Multiple professional societies support involving parents in medical decision-making while recognizing the right of adolescents to receive confidential reproductive health care.4749  The capacity of an adolescent to make medical decisions is an important consideration when determining the appropriate person to provide consent. There is a growing body of knowledge regarding adolescent cognitive development related to decision-making. The age of 18 years is a convenient legal dividing line, but does not accurately identify when an individual develops decision-making capacity.50  Research demonstrates that most adolescents are capable of medical decision-making by age 14, are as competent as adults to provide consent to abortion, and are able to make voluntary, rational, independent decisions.51,52  Adolescents may require more time to make a medical decision compared with adults but ultimately make decisions grounded in logic.53,54 

Adolescents seeking abortion therapy consistently cite not being ready to financially provide for a baby and future opportunity limitations as reasons for proceeding with pregnancy termination, suggesting rational decision-making based on future life planning.55,56 

Once pregnant, an adolescent, by many state laws, is held responsible for and competent to consent to their own medical treatment during the pregnancy and to the medical decisions regarding the fetus or newborn infant. Therefore, it is inconsistent to presume that a pregnant adolescent is not competent to make decisions regarding abortion therapies.5759 

There is substantial legal consensus that parental involvement laws run counter to fundamental principles of family law, which seek to protect the privacy of family decision-making from government interference and to protect the best interests of the minor in circumstances when the government does intervene in family affairs.60  Parental involvement laws do not impact adolescent pregnancy rates or birth rates.61  The impact of parental involvement laws on adolescent abortion rates is unclear because studies have produced mixed findings.6163  Previous evaluations of parental involvement laws found considerable variability in adolescent abortion rates and second-trimester abortion rates between states and different time periods.61,63  Recent studies have found judicial bypass to significantly delay the receipt of abortion care, which may lead to ineligibility to receive medication abortion, best demonstrated by a study involving 2063 minor adolescents.55,61,6468 

Polling suggests the widespread support for parental involvement laws is rooted in the hope that family responsibility and communication will be strengthened.22,69  Support for such laws is based on the belief that adolescents make better decisions after discussion with parental figures.22  Although this belief is well-accepted, supportive evidence is lacking.22,5872  A 2012 parental involvement law in New Hampshire did show more parental involvement after the law went into effect; however, most studies find the percentage of minors who inform parents about their intent to have an abortion is similar in states with and without notification laws.72,73  In states with parental involvement laws, adolescents seeking confidential abortion services use judicial bypass mechanisms, go out of state to obtain abortion services, obtain clandestine care, or delay care.64,68,71,7476  Studies confirm that most pregnant minors, especially those of younger ages, actively involve parents regardless of parental involvement laws.22,73,74,77,78,80  Pregnant minors often involve trusted adults such as other family members, teachers, coaches, and parents of friends, dispelling the characterization that adolescents make abortion decisions in isolation if not mandated to involve a parent.55,56,22,80 

Involuntary parental notification may precipitate a family crisis characterized by severe parental anger, possible violence, and rejection of the minor and their partner. Studies over the past 3 decades found that adolescents are motivated to seek confidential services for a variety of reasons, such as wanting to protect a vulnerable parent from stress and disappointment, belief that the relationship with the parent would be damaged, fear of losing housing and financial security, and fear that disclosure would escalate conflict or coercion to continue the pregnancy.55,56,79,81  Adolescents who are strongly opposed to informing parents about their intent to have an abortion tend to predict family reactions accurately.56,82  One-third of minors who do not inform parents have already experienced family violence and fear it will recur.79  Seminal research on tumultuous family environments shows that violence is at its height during a family member’s pregnancy and during adolescence.18  Although parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions is helpful in many cases, it is important to recognize that mandating parental involvement, despite an adolescent’s desire for confidentiality, increases the risk of violence, abuse, coercion, and rejection in families with financial or relationship instability.40,79,81,83,84 

Legal precedent has upheld that judicial bypass is a reasonable alternative to parental notification in the interest of protecting an adolescent from harm.18  Many experts, however, disagree with Supreme Court rulings on judicial bypass, arguing that the process constitutes an “undue burden” for adolescents seeking abortion care.58,60,70  Judges who preside over bypass rulings testify that the procedure is of no benefit to minors.64,8588  For the judicial bypass process to be effective, the adolescent has to be aware of this right, have a basic understanding of the court system and procedure to retain an attorney, be prepared for school and home absences, and have access to transportation.15  Minor adolescents are vulnerable to receiving inaccurate or incomplete information regarding the judicial bypass process. A multistate, “mystery-caller” study of abortion clinics revealed that only 55.6% of staff in states with parental involvement laws informed the simulated minor patient of their right to a judicial bypass.89 

As the judicial bypass process has become more restrictive, denials have increased.58,90  Since 2010, 11 states restricted judicial bypass by limiting the number of courts able to grant permission, amending the request procedure, and changing the type of evidence the minor must present to prove the ability to consent and why parental notification is not possible.91  Texas introduced legislation in 2015 requiring most minors to seek bypass in their home county.91  In 2014, Alabama enacted legislation allowing the district attorney to defend the interest of the fetus in cases of judicial bypass.91  Adolescents pursuing judicial bypass experience challenges, with some reporting feeling shame, intimidation, and physical symptoms of anxiety.9193  Inconsistency in the timing of proceedings, with some cases not proceeding on the scheduled day, and inconsistency in the reasoning behind judicial bypass denials have significant negative impact on adolescents.93 

Reproductive justice recognizes that the decision to parent or not parent in a safe space is a basic human right.94  This principle has been embraced by the AAP and other professional societies.95,96  Restrictive abortion policies directly conflict with this principle. The AAP strives to attain optimal health and well-being for all children, adolescents, and young adults, and recognizes the negative impact structural drivers of inequity have on health.97  Restrictive abortion laws disproportionately impact people of color in the United States, with studies identifying a higher reduction in abortion rates among individuals identifying as Hispanic and those living in rural counties after passage of restrictive abortion laws.98100  Black and Hispanic individuals are more likely to live in states with restrictive state abortion laws, and because of complex structural inequities, have slightly higher abortion rates compared with non-Hispanic, White individuals.98,101,102  Structural inequities have led to racial and ethnic disparities in poverty-related factors such as transportation, lack of expendable finances, and health insurance, all of which contribute to inequitable access to health care, including abortion care.101,103,104  Restrictive state abortion laws not only exaggerate existing racial and ethnic abortion access inequity, but also disproportionately impact adolescent access to care, especially if travel to another state is required.104 

Parental involvement laws that strictly define “parent” or “legal guardian” discount the complexity of family structures in the United States, especially because minors from various racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background are more like to live in family structures that may not include, or include more than, both biological parents.105108  It is important to note that the impact of parental involvement laws is unknown on families recently immigrating to the United States in which parents and their adolescent children may hold significantly different religious or cultural beliefs, leading to different standards related to sexual relationships. Parents with undocumented residence status is another significant barrier to an adolescent seeking abortion services in states with restrictive parental involvement laws because ∼ 6% of infants born in the United States had a parent without legal residence status.109 

Parental involvement laws fail to recognize the added stress that an adolescent pregnancy may bring to the family. To preserve parent well-being, adolescents in families experiencing complex stressors such as recent death or significant illness, financial trouble, recent divorce, or threats of deportation are likely to pursue judicial bypass rather than involve a parent in the decision to proceed with legal abortion services.55,56  Again, because of structural inequities, adolescents of color are more likely to experience some of these family stressors and may be more negatively impacted by parental involvement laws.98  Special family circumstances may be driving the decision to maintain confidentiality. Parental involvement laws do not account for these special circumstances and contribute to the inequitable impact of barriers facing adolescents seeking confidential abortion services.

Recent studies show that, although abortion rates decrease in states with restrictive laws, abortion therapy in neighboring states and gestational age at the time of abortion therapy increases.99,100,110113  If there is no federal protection to abortion, it is estimated that, on average, 39% of the national population would need to travel an additional 249 miles to receive legal abortion services.114  Adolescents are particularly negatively impacted by geographic restrictions to legal abortion services when considering transportation access, cost, and absence from both home and school.55,115 

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic accelerated advances in delivering health and legal services using virtual technology. Telehealth services to deliver medication abortion care have been used since the United States Food and Drug Administration allowed the mailing of abortion pills in April 2021.116  Medication abortion by telehealth is safe, effective, and acceptable.117  In recent years, the practice of self-managed medication abortion has gained acceptance and traction as restrictive abortion laws have reduced access to these services in traditional medical settings.118  Trauma related to self-instrumentation in an effort to end pregnancy may be reduced by teaching self-administration of misoprostol, reducing morbidity and mortality.119  Limited evidence suggests that self-managed medication abortion is safe, but concerns over the ability to accurately self-identify as an appropriate candidate for medication abortion and the ability to access urgent medical care support the need for legal abortion.120  It is important for health care professionals to be aware of the availability of self-managed abortion and to be able to provide accurate information to adolescents who desire abortion services in states with highly restrictive laws. The relationship between restrictive abortion laws, high-risk pregnancy outcomes, unsafe abortion, and maternal mortality emphasizes the importance of ensuring that adolescents have access to confidential legal abortion.25 

  1. The AAP reaffirms its position that the rights of adolescents to confidential care when considering abortion should be protected. Although the stated intent of mandatory parental involvement laws is to enhance family communication and parental responsibility, there is no supporting evidence that these effects are achieved. There is evidence that such legislation may have an adverse impact on some families and pose medical and psychological harm to some adolescents. Similarly, judicial bypass provisions do not ameliorate risks and may delay access to safe and appropriate care.

  2. Because of the harms of restrictive abortion laws and the dangers associated with unsafe abortions, adolescents should have access to legal abortion services.

  3. When safe and appropriate, health care professionals should encourage adolescents to seek adult guidance and support when considering their pregnancy options. It should be recognized that most adolescents do involve a parent or trusted adult when making the decision to proceed with legal abortion therapy. Ultimately, the pregnant adolescent’s right to decide whom to involve in the decision to seek abortion care should be respected. This approach is consistent with basic ethical, legal, and health care principles.

  4. Health care professionals should understand state and regional laws regulating abortion services, including restrictions on health care professionals’ counseling about or referring adolescents for abortion therapy. For more information on laws in your state, contact AAP State Advocacy at stgov@aap.org.

  5. Health care professionals should be aware of structural inequities within US society and understand that adolescents from marginalized communities are likely to experience more negative impacts from restrictive abortion laws, including mandatory parental involvement and judicial bypass requirements.

Elise D. Berlan, MD, MPH, FAAP Seema Menon, MD

Elizabeth M. Alderman, MD, FSAHM, FAAP, chairperson Elise D. Berlan, MD, MPH, FAAP Richard J. Chung, MD, FAAP Michael D. Colburn, MD, MEd, FAAP Laura K. Grubb, MD, FAAP Janet Lee, MD, FAAP Stephenie B. Wallace, MD, MSPH, FAAP

Anne-Marie Amies, MD, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Liwei L. Hua MD, PhD, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Seema Menon, MD, North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Maria H. Rahmandar, MD, FAAP, Section on Adolescent Health Ellie Vyver, MD, Canadian Paediatric Society Lauren Zapata, PhD, MSPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Karen S. Smith James Baumberger, MPP

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

Policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and external reviewers. However, policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the organizations or government agencies that they represent.

The recommendations in this report do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

COMPANION PAPER: A Companion to this article can be found online at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2022-058781.

     
  • AAP

    American Academy of Pediatrics

1
American Medical Association
.
Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.2.3
.
2
Committee on Adolescence
.
Contraception for adolescents
.
Pediatrics
.
2014
;
134
(
4
):
e1244
e1256
3
Kemp
C
.
AAP News
.
AAP holds summit on youth access to reproductive health care
.
4
Darney
P
.
One Hundred Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology
.
A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later
.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
.
2013
;
209
(
3
):
193
199
5
Fleming
GV
,
O’Connor
KG
.
Adolescent abortion: views of the membership of the American Academy of Pediatrics
.
Pediatrics
.
1993
;
91
(
3
):
561
565
6
Miller
NH
,
Miller
DJ
,
Pinkston Koenigs
LM
.
Attitudes of the physician membership of the society for adolescent medicine toward medical abortions for adolescents
.
Pediatrics
.
1998
;
101
(
5
):
E4
7
Nash
E
.
State policy trends 2021: the worst year for abortion rights in almost half a century
.
8
Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)
9
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976)
10
Bellotti v Baird, 443 US 622 (1979)
11
Hodgson v Minnesota, 497 US 417 (1990)
12
Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 US 833 (1992)
13
Population Institute
.
Beyond Roe: the floor, not the ceiling
.
14
Nash
E
,
Cross
L
.
26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion without Roe: here’s which ones and why
.
15
Population Institute
.
Beyond Roe: parental involvement laws
.
16
Guttmacher Institute
.
Parental involvement in minors’ abortion. State policies in brief
.
Available at: www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PIMA.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2022
17
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
.
Confidentiality in adolescent health care. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 803
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2020
;
135
:
e171
e177
18
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
.
Mandatory parental consent to abortion
.
JAMA
.
1993
;
269
(
1
):
82
86
19
Ford
C
,
English
A
,
Sigman
G
.
Confidential health care for adolescents: position paper for the society for adolescent medicine
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2004
;
35
(
2
):
160
167
20
American Academy of Family Physicians
.
Adolescent health care, confidentiality
.
21
American Public Health Association
.
Ensuring minors’ access to confidential abortion services
.
22
Webster
RD
,
Neustadt
AN
,
Whitaker
AK
,
Gilliam
ML
.
Parental involvement laws and parent–daughter communication: policy without proof
.
Contraception
.
2010
;
82
(
4
):
310
313
23
The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
.
The safety and quality of abortion care in the United States. A consensus report
.
Available at: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/24950. Accessed June 1, 2022
24
Addante
AN
,
Eisenberg
DL
,
Valentine
MC
,
Leonard
J
,
Maddox
KEJ
,
Hoofnagle
MH
.
The association between state-level abortion restrictions and maternal mortality in the United States, 1995–2017
.
Contraception
.
2021
;
104
(
5
):
496
501
25
Ngo
NV
,
Pemunta
NV
,
Basil
N
, et al
.
Reproductive health policy saga: Restrictive abortion laws in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), unnecessary cause of maternal mortality. [Published online ahead of print November 2, 2021]
Health Care Women Int
.
2021
:
1
19
26
Faúndes
A
.
The responsibility of gynecologists and obstetricians in providing safe abortion services within the limits of the law
.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet
.
2017
;
139
(
1
):
1
3
27
ESHRE Capri Workshop Group
.
Induced abortion
.
Hum Reprod
.
2017
;
32
(
6
):
1160
1169
28
Staniczenko
AP
,
Wen
T
,
Cepin
AG
, et al
.
Deliveries among patients aged 11–19 years and risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2022
;
139
(
6
):
989
1001
29
Raymond
EG
,
Grimes
DA
.
The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2012
;
119
(
2 Pt 1
):
215
219
30
Pazol
K
,
Creanga
AA
,
Zane
SB
,
Burley
KD
,
Jamieson
DJ
.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
.
Abortion surveillance–United States, 2009
.
MMWR Surveill Summ
.
2012
;
61
(
8
):
1
44
31
Hoyert
DL
.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2020
.
32
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion
.
Report of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion
.
Washington, DC
:
American Psychological Association
;
2008
33
Hardy
J
,
Zabin
L
.
Adolescent Pregnancy in an Urban Environment: Issues, Programs, and Evaluation
.
Washington, DC
:
Urban Institute Press
;
1991
34
Zabin
LS
,
Sedivy
V
.
Abortion among adolescents: research findings and the current debate
.
J Sch Health
.
1992
;
62
(
7
):
319
324
35
Blumenthal
S
.
Psychiatric consequences of abortion: an overview of research findings
. In:
Stotland
N
, ed.
Psychiatric Aspects of Abortion
.
Washington, DC
:
American Psychiatric Press
;
1991
:
17
37
36
Stotland
NL
.
The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome
.
JAMA
.
1992
;
268
(
15
):
2078
2079
37
Stotland
NL
.
Induced abortion and adolescent mental health
.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol
.
2011
;
23
(
5
):
340
343
38
Warren
JT
,
Harvey
SM
,
Henderson
JT
.
Do depression and low self-esteem follow abortion among adolescents? Evidence from a national study
.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
.
2010
;
42
(
4
):
230
235
39
Schmiege
S
,
Russo
NF
.
Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
.
BMJ
.
2005
;
331
(
7528
):
1303
1308
40
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence
.
Options counseling for the pregnant adolescent patient
.
Pediatrics
.
2022
;
150
(
3
):
e2022058781
41
Rocca
CH
,
Samari
G
,
Foster
DG
,
Gould
H
,
Kimport
K
.
Emotions and decision rightness over five years following an abortion: An examination of decision difficulty and abortion stigma
.
Soc Sci Med
.
2020
;
248
:
112704
42
Zabin
LS
,
Hirsch
MB
,
Emerson
MR
.
When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1989
;
21
(
6
):
248
255
43
Resnick
MD
.
Adolescent pregnancy options
.
J Sch Health
.
1992
;
62
(
7
):
298
303
44
Resnick
MD
,
Blum
RW
,
Bose
J
, %
Smith
M
,
Toogood
R
.
Characteristics of unmarried adolescent mothers: determinants of child rearing versus adoption
.
Am J Orthopsychiatry
.
1990
;
60
(
4
):
577
584
45
Barton
K
,
Redshaw
M
,
Quigley
MA
, %
Carson
C
.
Unplanned pregnancy and subsequent psychological distress in partnered women: a cross-sectional study of the role of relationship quality and wider social support
.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
.
2017
;
17
(
1
):
44
46
American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs
.
Induced terminations of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade. Trends in the mortality and morbidity of women
.
JAMA
.
1992
;
268
(
22
):
3231
3239
47
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs
.
The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics’ opinions on confidential care for sexually active minors and physicians’ exercise of conscience in refusal of services
.
Virtual Mentor
.
2012
;
14
(
2
):
118
120
48
The 21st Century Cures Act and adolescent confidentiality
.
Pediatrics
.
2021
;
147
(
6
):
e2021051487
49
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
.
Confidentiality in adolescent health care. ACOG Committee Opinion Summary, Number 803
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2020
;
135
(
4
):
989
990
50
Baltag
V
,
Takeuchi
Y
,
Guthold
R
, %
Ambresin
AE
.
Assessing and supporting adolescents’ capacity for autonomous decision-making in health-care settings; new guidance from the World Health Organization
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2022
;
71
(
1
):
10
13
51
Grootens-Wiegers
P
,
Hein
IM
,
van den Broek
JM
,
de Vries
MC
.
Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects
.
BMC Pediatr
.
2017
;
17
(
1
):
120
52
Diekema
DS
.
Adolescent brain development and medical decision-making
.
Pediatrics
.
2020
;
146
(
1 Suppl 1
):
S18
S24
53
Hopkins
KA
,
Ott
MA
,
Salih
Z
,
Bosslet
GT
,
Lantos
J
.
When adolescent and parents disagree on medical plan, who gets to decide?
Pediatrics
.
2019
;
144
(
2
):
e20190291
54
Blakemore
SJ
,
Robbins
TW
.
Decision-making in the adolescent brain
.
Nat Neurosci
.
2012
;
15
(
9
):
1184
1191
55
Ralph
LJ
,
Chaiten
L
,
Werth
E
,
Daniel
S
,
Brindis
CD
,
Biggs
MA
.
Reasons for and logistical burdens of judicial bypass for abortion in Illinois
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2021
;
68
(
1
):
71
78
56
Coleman-Minahan
K
,
Jean Stevenson
A
,
Obront
E
,
Hays
S
.
Adolescents obtaining abortions without parental consent: their reasons and experiences of social support
.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
.
2020
;
52
(
1
):
15
22
57
Moreno
JD
.
Treating the adolescent patient. An ethical analysis
.
J Adolesc Health Care
.
1989
;
10
(
6
):
454
459
58
Crosby
MC
,
English
A
.
Mandatory parental involvement/judicial bypass laws: do they promote adolescents’ health?
J Adolesc Health
.
1991
;
12
(
2
):
143
147
59
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
.
Public Health Implications of Abortion
.
Washington, DC
:
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
;
1990
60
Greenberger
MD
,
Connor
K
.
Parental notice and consent for abortion: out of step with family law principles and policies
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1991
;
23
(
1
):
31
35
61
Dennis
A
,
Henshaw
SK
,
Joyce
TJ
,
Finer
LB
,
Blanchard
K
.
The Impact of Laws Requiring Parental Involvement for Abortion: A Literature Review
.
New York, NY
:
Guttmacher Institute
;
2009
62
Joyce
T
.
Parental consent for abortion and the judicial bypass option in Arkansas: effects and correlates
.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
.
2010
;
42
(
3
):
168
175
63
Joyce
TJ
,
Kaestner
R
,
Ward
J
.
The impact of parental involvement laws on the abortion rate of minors
.
Demography
.
2020
;
57
(
1
):
323
346
64
Janiak
E
,
Fulcher
IR
,
Cottrill
AA
, et al
.
Massachusetts’ parental consent law and procedural timing among adolescents undergoing abortion
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2019
;
133
(
5
):
978
986
65
Colman
S
,
Joyce
T
.
Minors’ behavioral responses to parental involvement laws: delaying abortion until age 18
.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
.
2009
;
41
(
2
):
119
126
66
Joyce
T
,
Kaestner
R
,
Colman
S
.
Changes in abortions and births and the Texas parental notification law
.
N Engl J Med
.
2006
;
354
(
10
):
1031
1038
67
Henshaw
SK
.
The impact of requirements for parental consent on minors’ abortions in Mississippi
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1995
;
27
(
3
):
120
122
68
Cartoof
VG
,
Klerman
LV
.
Parental consent for abortion: impact of the Massachusetts law
.
Am J Public Health
.
1986
;
76
(
4
):
397
400
69
Worthington
EL
Jr
,
Larson
DB
,
Lyons
JS
, et al
.
Mandatory parental involvement prior to adolescent abortion
.
J Adolesc Health
.
1991
;
12
(
2
):
138
142
70
Donovan
P
.
Judging teenagers: how minors fare when they seek court- authorized abortions
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1983
;
15
(
6
):
259
267
71
Donovan
P
.
Our Daughters’ Decisions: The Conflict in State Law on Abortion and Other Issues
.
New York, NY
:
Guttmacher Institute
;
1992
72
MacAfee
L
,
Castle
J
,
Theiler
RN
.
Association between the New Hampshire parental notification law and minors undergoing abortions in northern New England
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2015
;
125
(
1
):
170
174
73
Blum
RW
,
Resnick
MD
,
Stark
TA
.
The impact of a parental notification law on adolescent abortion decision- making
.
Am J Public Health
.
1987
;
77
(
5
):
619
620
74
Blum
RW
,
Resnick
MD
,
Stark
T
.
Factors associated with the use of court bypass by minors to obtain abortions
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1990
;
22
(
4
):
158
160
75
Binkin
N
,
Gold
J
,
Cates
W
Jr
.
Illegal-abortion deaths in the United States: why are they still occurring?
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1982
;
14
(
3
):
163
167
76
Missouri Department of Health
.
Missouri Monthly Vital Statistics
.
Jefferson City, MO
:
Missouri Department of Health
;
1990
77
Ralph
L
,
Gould
H
,
Baker
A
,
Foster
DG
.
The role of parents and partners in minors’ decisions to have an abortion and anticipated coping after abortion
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2014
;
54
(
4
):
428
434
78
Hasselbacher
LA
,
Dekleva
A
,
Tristan
S
,
Gilliam
ML
.
Factors influencing parental involvement among minors seeking an abortion: a qualitative study
.
Am J Public Health
.
2014
;
104
(
11
):
2207
2211
79
Henshaw
SK
,
Kost
K
.
Parental involvement in minors’ abortion decisions
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1992
;
24
(
5
):
196
207
,
213
80
Zabin
LS
,
Hirsch
MB
,
Emerson
MR
, %
Raymond
E
.
To whom do inner-city minors talk about their pregnancies? Adolescents’ communication with parents and parent surrogates
.
Fam Plann Perspect
.
1992
;
24
(
4
):
148
154
,
173
81
Ehrlich
JS
.
Grounded in the reality of their lives: listening to teens who make the abortion decision without involving their parents
.
Berkeley Womens Law J
.
2003
;
18
:
61
180
82
Benshoof
J
.
Planned Parenthood v Casey. The impact of the new undue burden standard on reproductive health care
.
JAMA
.
1993
;
269
(
17
):
2249
2257
83
Declaration of Lenore E. Walker P, American Academy of Pediatrics v VandeKamp, 214 App 3d831 (Cal 1989), filed November 23, 1987
84
Clary
F
.
Minor women obtaining abortions: a study of parental notification in a metropolitan area
.
Am J Public Health
.
1982
;
72
(
3
):
283
285
85
American Academy of Pediatrics v Lungren, 16 Cal 4th 307 (1997)
86
Teare
C
.
California affirms minors’ right to abortion
.
Youth Law News
.
1994
;
15
(
4
):
1
3
87
Blasdell
J
.
Mother, may I?: ramifications for parental involvement laws for minors seeking abortion services
.
Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law
.
2002
;
10
(
2
):
287
304
88
Raskin
JB
.
The paradox of judicial bypass proceedings
.
Am Univ J Gend Soc Policy Law
.
2002
;
10
(
2
):
281
285
89
Dodge
LE
,
Haider
S
,
Hacker
MR
.
Knowledge of state-level abortion laws and policies among front-line staff at facilities providing abortion services
.
Womens Health Issues
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
e415
e420
90
Stevenson
AJ
,
Coleman-Minahan
K
,
Hays
S
.
Denials of judicial bypass petitions for abortion in Texas before and after the 2016 bypass process change: 2001–2018
.
Am J Public Health
.
2020
;
110
(
3
):
351
353
91
Marr
A
.
Judicial bypass procedures. Undue burdens for young people seeking safe abortion care
.
92
Kavanagh
EK
,
Hasselbacher
LA
, %
Betham
B
,
Tristan
S
,
Gilliam
ML
.
Abortion-seeking minors’ views on the Illinois parental notification law: a qualitative study
.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health
.
2012
;
44
(
3
):
159
166
93
Coleman-Minahan
K
,
Stevenson
AJ
, %
Obront
E
,
Hays
S
.
Young women’s experience obtaining judicial bypass for abortion in Texas
.
J Adolesc Health
.
2019
;
64
(
1
):
20
25
94
SisterSong
.
Reproductive justice
.
Available at: https://www.sistersong.net/reproductive-justice. Accessed June 1, 2022
95
Menon
S
.
Committee on Adolescence
.
Long-acting reversible contraception: specific issues for adolescents
.
Pediatrics
.
2020
;
146
(
2
):
e2020007252
96
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, Contraceptive Equity Expert Work Group, and Committee on Ethics
.
Patient-centered contraceptive counseling. Committee Statement No. 1
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2022
;
139
(
2
):
350
353
97
Stein
F
,
Remley
K
,
Laraque-Arena
D
,
Pursley
DM
.
New resources and strategies to advance the AAP’s values of diversity, inclusion, and health equity
.
Pediatrics
.
2018
;
141
(
4
):
e21080177
98
Mosley
EA
,
Redd
SK
,
Hartwig
SA
, et al
.
Racial and ethnic abortion disparities following georgia’s 22-week gestational age limit
.
Womens Health Issues
.
2022
;
32
(
1
):
9
19
99
Norris
AH
,
Chakraborty
P
,
Lang
K
, et al
.
Abortion access in Ohio changing legislative context, 2010-2018
.
Am J Public Health
.
2020
;
110
(
8
):
1228
1234
100
Goyal
V
,
Brooks
IHM
,
Powers
DA
.
Differences in abortion rates by race-ethnicity after implementation of a restrictive Texas law
.
Contraception
.
2020
;
102
(
2
):
109
114
101
Dehlendorf
C
,
Weitz
T
.
Access to abortion services: a neglected health disparity
.
J Health Care Poor Underserved
.
2011
;
22
(
2
):
415
421
102
Guttmacher Institute
.
Abortion rates by race and ethnicity
.
New York, NY: Guttmacher Institute; October 2017. Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/infographic/2017/abortion-rates- race-and-ethnicity. Accessed June 19, 2022
103
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on Community-Based Solutions to Promote Health Equity in the United States
. In:
Baciu
A
,
Negussie
Y
,
Geller
A
, et al, eds.
Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity
.
Washington, DC
:
National Academies Press
;
2017
104
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Abortion Access and Training Expert Work Group
.
Increasing access to abortion. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 815
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2020
;
136
(
6
):
e107
e115
105
Livingston
G
.
At grandmother’s house we stay
.
106
Hummer
RA
,
Hamilton
ER
.
Race and ethnicity in fragile families
.
Future Child
.
2010
;
20
(
2
):
113
131
107
Smock
PJ
,
Schwartz
CR
.
The demography of families: a review of patterns and change
.
J Marriage Fam
.
2020
;
82
(
1
):
9
34
108
Pilkauskas
NV
,
Amorim
M
,
Dunifon
RE
.
Historical trends in children living in multigenerational households in the United States: 1870–2018
.
Demography
.
2020
;
57
(
6
):
2269
2296
109
Fabi
RE
,
Saloner
B
,
Taylor
H
.
State policymaking and stated reasons: prenatal care for undocumented immigrants in an era of abortion restriction
.
Milbank Q
.
2021
;
99
(
3
):
693
720
110
Brown
BP
,
Hebert
LE
,
Gilliam
M
, %
Kaestner
R
.
Association of highly restrictive state abortion policies with abortion rates, 2000–2014
.
JAMA Netw Open
.
2020
;
3
(
11
):
e2024610
111
Bhardwaj
NR
,
Murray-Krezan
C
,
Carr
S
, et al
.
Traveling for rights: abortion trends in New Mexico after passage of restrictive Texas legislation
.
Contraception
.
2020
;
102
(
2
):
115
118
112
Williams
SG
,
Roberts
S
,
Kerns
JL
.
Effects of legislation regulating abortion in Arizona
.
Womens Health Issues
.
2018
;
28
(
4
):
297
300
113
White
K
,
Baum
SE
,
Hopkins
K
,
Potter
JE
,
Grossman
D
.
Change in second-trimester abortion after implementation of a restrictive state law
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2019
;
133
(
4
):
771
779
114
Myers
C
,
Jones
R
,
Upadhyay
U
.
Predicted changes in abortion access and incidence in a post-Roe world
.
Contraception
.
2019
;
100
(
5
):
367
373
115
Greyhound
.
Children traveling
.
116
Jones
RK
,
Nash
E
,
Cross
L
,
Philbin
J
,
Kirstein
M
.
Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all US abortions
.
117
Chong
E
,
Shochet
T
,
Raymond
E
, et al
.
Expansion of a direct-to-patient telemedicine abortion service in the United States and experience during the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Contraception
.
2021
;
104
(
1
):
43
48
118
World Health Organization
.
WHO consolidated guideline on self-care interventions for health. Sexual and reproductive health and rights
.
119
Tasset
J
,
Harris
LH
.
Harm reduction for abortion in the United States
.
Obstet Gynecol
.
2018
;
131
(
4
):
621
624
120
Conti
J
,
Cahill
EP
.
Self-managed abortion
.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol
.
2019
;
31
(
6
):
435
440