Iowa Supreme Court: State’s 6-Week Abortion Ban Can Take Effect
The Iowa Supreme Court on June 28 ruled in favor of state officials who asked justices to lift an injunction against the state’s 6-week abortion ban.
The majority said that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution and thus state officials only have to show a rational basis for the statute.
“We conclude that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life,” Justice Matthew McDermott wrote for the majority.
The law bans most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother.
The Iowa Legislature passed the law during a 2023 special session called by Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds to enact legislation on abortion and unborn children.
Planned Parenthood and other groups filed for an emergency injunction, arguing the law violated women’s constitutional rights.
Polk County District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin, who was assigned the case, ruled that abortion is a fundamental right in Iowa and applied what’s known as the “undue burden” test.
He determined that the law would deter many women from obtaining abortions, said groups challenging the law were likely to succeed in proving it is unconstitutional, and issued a temporary injunction.
State officials appealed, pointing to a 2022 ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court that said abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution.
“The state of Iowa has a vital interest in protecting unborn human life at all stages of development. The injunction precluding enforcement of Iowa’s Fetal Heartbeat Statute undermines that interest, ignores recent developments in state and federal law, and misapplies this court’s recent abortion precedents,” state lawyers told the Iowa Supreme Court.
The majority agreed, finding that Judge Seidlin wrongly applied the undue burden test and should have looked at whether the law is rationally related to a government interest.
Justice McDermott noted that the state has said the law was aimed at respecting and preserving prenatal life, maternal health and safety, and eliminating “particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures.”
