An Iowa judge on Monday temporarily blocked a new six-week abortion ban from being in effect.
Polk County District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin’s order means the law, which Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday, will remain on hold while the legal challenge unfolds in the court system.
«The court will grant the injunctive relief requested here. In doing so, it acknowledges that there are good, honorable, and intelligent people, morally, politically, and legally, on both sides of this disturbing social and constitutional dilemma. Patience and perseverance are also a hallmark traits on both sides, traits that continue to command respect,» Seidlin wrote.
«The court believes that it should follow the current precedent of the Iowa Supreme Court and preserve the status quo ante as this litigation proceeds,» it added.
Reynolds signed the ban law into law Friday at a major political meeting hosted by an evangelical Christian group. She told attendees, including several 2024 Republican presidential candidates, that it represented «an unwavering commitment to the smallest and most vulnerable among us.»
«The abortion industry’s attempt to thwart the will of Iowans and the voices of their elected representatives continues today, but I will fight this all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court, where we await a decision that finally provides justice for the unborn.» Reynolds said in a statement Monday in response to the court order.
The law went into effect at the time Reynolds signed the bill, but was frozen by the judge’s temporary injunction Monday afternoon. With the law on hold for now, abortion restrictions in the state will revert to the previous law, which allowed abortion up to the 20th week of pregnancy.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature approved the new law last week during a marathon 15-hour special session that Reynolds had called for the sole purpose of enacting what she called «pro-life legislation.»
The new law it includes exceptions for the life of the woman, spontaneous abortions and fetal anomalies considered by a doctor “incompatible with life”, as well as for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. For those exceptions to apply, the rape must have been reported to law enforcement or a «public or private health agency,» including a family doctor, within 45 days, and the violation must have been reported. incest to any of those officials or entities within a period of 45 days. 140 days
Reproductive rights advocates have said that a six-week ban amounts to a total ban because many women don’t even know they are pregnant that soon.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Emma Goldman Clinic, a women’s health care facility in Iowa City, filed a lawsuit to block the law from going into effect Wednesday, less than 12 hours after the Legislature passed the ban. arguing that it violates the Iowa Constitution.
Reproductive rights groups had said that if the law went into effect immediately, abortion clinics and patients in the state would be in trouble. Planned Parenthood officials said clinics in the state stayed open until 10 p.m. Thursday providing care in anticipation of Friday’s signing.
In their challenge, they had asked Seidlin to block the law from taking effect.
At a hearing on Friday that coincided with Reynolds’ signing ceremony, Seidlin said his application «requires my strong and prolonged attention» and that he «could not think of anything that could be more insulting» than to quickly rule on the challenge. .
The new law came just weeks after the state Supreme Court issued a divided decision allowing an earlier six-week abortion ban, which lawmakers had enacted in 2018, to remain permanently blocked.
While the new one is almost identical to the six-week ban that remains locked, the outcome of the challenge this time could be different, because there will be a full state Supreme Court that will issue a decision.
state supreme court split judgment last month was a strictly tailored decision based largely on procedural grounds, meaning it remains possible, if not likely, that a full seven-member court could find legal consensus on a new ban.
One of the seven justices on the court, Reynolds appointee Dana Oxley, recused herself from challenging the 2018 law because her former law firm represented an abortion clinic that was a plaintiff in the original case.
Last month’s split decision featured three justices who suggested they might support a legal standard, known as «rational basis,» that could allow a six-week abortion limit to be upheld in the future.
If Oxley were part of the next decision, it would most likely result in a clear and legally binding majority on a six-week ban.
On the other hand, in their challenge to the latest law introduced last week, reproductive rights groups argued that judges continue to apply a higher standard, called the «undue burden» standard.
While that standard was struck down nationally in the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling last year that struck down Roe v. Wade, is still in effect in Iowa.