Helena Silverstein – författare

Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2008The 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 widely divergent 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 naïve 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.

Choice Outstanding Academic Title for 2008The 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 widely divergent 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 naïve 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.

This accessible guide to the U.S. Supreme Court explains the Court's history and authority, its structure and processes, its most important and enduring legal decisions, and its place in the U.S. political system.A 2018 Pew Research Center poll found that while 78 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents believed that the Supreme Court should base its decisions on the "modern" meaning of the Constitution, 67 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents asserted that Justices should rely on the Constitution's "original meaning."The Court often is the final arbiter of polarizing battles that originate in other branches of government. At the same time, however, its structural insulation from Congress, the Presidency, and electoral politics make the Supreme Court—at least in theory—well positioned to rise above the rough-and-tumble of politics. This book examines the power of the Supreme Court in America's system of democratic governance in several ways. These include: reviewing debates over whether justices should interpret the Constitution in line with its "original meaning" or in accordance with present-day understandings; exploring the processes and factors that shape how cases are chosen and decided; considering contentious battles over the selection of justices; and examining the impact of the Court on American culture and society.

This volume explores the many ways in which politics shapes the allegedly nonpartisan judicial system in America, ranging from how judges are selected to the bench to how they rule when they get there. Each title in the Contemporary Debates series examines the veracity of controversial claims or beliefs surrounding a major political/cultural issue in the United States. Each book gives readers a clear and unbiased understanding of current high-interest issues by informing them about falsehoods, half-truths, and misconceptions — and confirming the factual validity of other assertions — that have gained traction in America's cultural and political discourse.This volume in the series provides a deeply researched and even-handed account of the relationship between America's judicial branch — which is supposed to view law through a nonpartisan lens — and the sometimes poisonous partisanship that is such a notorious factor in the nation's other two branches of government. Is political combat over judicial nominations worse than ever before? What impact is the politicization of the courts having on public faith in the legitimacy of the courts and our wider political system? Was former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day right when she asserted that "judicial independence is a bedrock principle of our court system, and we are losing it"? This work will provide insights into all these questions and more.

This volume explores the many ways in which politics shapes the allegedly nonpartisan judicial system in America, ranging from how judges are selected to the bench to how they rule when they get there. Each title in the Contemporary Debates series examines the veracity of controversial claims or beliefs surrounding a major political/cultural issue in the United States. Each book gives readers a clear and unbiased understanding of current high-interest issues by informing them about falsehoods, half-truths, and misconceptions — and confirming the factual validity of other assertions — that have gained traction in America's cultural and political discourse.This volume in the series provides a deeply researched and even-handed account of the relationship between America's judicial branch — which is supposed to view law through a nonpartisan lens — and the sometimes poisonous partisanship that is such a notorious factor in the nation's other two branches of government. Is political combat over judicial nominations worse than ever before? What impact is the politicization of the courts having on public faith in the legitimacy of the courts and our wider political system? Was former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day right when she asserted that "judicial independence is a bedrock principle of our court system, and we are losing it"? This work will provide insights into all these questions and more.