Iowa Supreme Court Rejects 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Requirement

WASHINGTON, DC - June 27:  A podium awaits pro-choice speakers in front of the U.S. Supreme Court  on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case. (Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 27: A podium awaits pro-choice speakers in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the pla... WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 27: A podium awaits pro-choice speakers in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. A ruling is expected in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a Texas case the places restrictions on abortion clinics, as well as rulings in the former Virginia Governor's corruption case and a gun rights case. (Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday blocked a law requiring a 72-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion.

The court ruled that the law violates the Iowa Constitution, siding with a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood of Iowa and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. The organizations sued the state over the law approved by lawmakers last year.

A district court judge upheld the waiting period in September, but the Supreme Court blocked its implementation until it could hear arguments from both sides.

The waiting period is part of a law banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The 20-week ban is in effect and isn’t part of the legal challenge.

Planned Parenthood argued that the court “should join the high courts in numerous other states that have found that the right to choose abortion warrants greater protection than has been afforded under the federal Constitution.” The organization said supreme courts in 12 states had made such rulings.

The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized privacy as a fundamental right in previous cases. Planned Parenthood argued that the court should conclude, in this case, that abortion was a core privacy right and should be treated like other fundamental rights under the Iowa Constitution.

“Iowa has chosen to impose more severe burdens on women who choose abortion than almost all other states in violation of both the Iowa Constitution and federal law,” the group’s attorney, Alice Clapman, argued in court arguments.

Clapman said women who seek abortions in Iowa “already make careful decisions. They already contend with massive obstacles in carrying out their decision.” The mandatory waiting period, also referred to as the informed choice provision, would make those obstacles far worse, she wrote.

Iowa Solicitor General Jeffrey Thompson, who is defending the law for the state, argued that protecting unborn life is a state interest of the highest order. He said choosing to terminate a pregnancy is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution, and that the waiting period provides time for women to consider information about the procedure that abortion providers are required to provide, including an opportunity to view an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat.

“The informed choice provision does not remove the ultimate decision from the woman. Rather, it reflects the hope of the legislature that after receiving the information and taking some time to consider it, some women will choose to continue a pregnancy that they might otherwise have terminated,” he wrote in court documents.

Iowa lawmakers earlier this year also passed a bill prohibiting abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. That law also is on hold pending a legal challenge.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. A mote of light in an otherwise bleak week of encroaching darkness.

    But learn the lesson, Dems/liberals: All politics is local. The battleground must now be the states and THEIR constitutions. It should have been all along, but you lived up to the GOP’s accusations of being overly focused on commanding a powerful centralized federal government, allowing them to undermine everything by controlling most states.

    Do you hear it too? That’s Tip O’Neil yelling “I fucking told you so” from his grave.

  2. Iowa Solicitor General Jeffrey Thompson, who is defending the law for the state, argued that . . . the waiting period provides time for women to consider information about the procedure that abortion providers are required to provide, including an opportunity to view an ultrasound or hear a fetal heartbeat.

    Pretty sure that the conservative bloc on the US Supreme Court just declared that compelled speech about abortion violates the doctors’ free speech rights. May the law of unintended consequences bite them in the ass.

  3. So when does the Iowa senate start calling for impeachment of judges?

  4. I’m guessing immediately.

    The gop’ers kicked out the judges who gave us statewide gay marriage right quick. You know, cause that was somehow going to cause the end of civilization. Which at the time was depicted as hellfire raining from the sky, but what they meant was cake-baking issues.

  5. Woman’s body, woman’s decision. Sick of these legislators thinking they are allowed to interfere with women’s right to have control over their reproductive choices. I fear for my granddaughters.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

16 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for arrrrrj Avatar for tsalagi51 Avatar for losamigos Avatar for sniffit Avatar for voluntarycurmudgeon Avatar for ottnott Avatar for eb5 Avatar for keninmn Avatar for susanintheoc Avatar for brian512 Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for corncaucus2008 Avatar for demosthenes59 Avatar for euglena4056 Avatar for atldrew Avatar for rascal_crone

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: