As a result of Polk County District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin’s ruling, the law that Republican Governor Kim Reynolds signed into law on Friday will be suspended while the legal dispute is resolved in court.
“The temporary injunction asked here will be granted by the court. In doing so, it acknowledges that there are decent, honorable, and knowledgeable individuals on both sides of this troubling social and legal quandary, who are morally, politically, and legally sound. Both sides are known for their perseverance and patience, which are qualities that still merit respect.
He continued, “The court believes it must follow current Iowa Supreme Court precedent and preserve the status quo ante while this litigation” is ongoing.
During a significant political event Friday hosted by an evangelical Christian organization, Reynolds signed the prohibition into law. She told the audience, which included a number of Republican hopefuls for president in 2024, that it demonstrated “an ironclad commitment to the smallest and most vulnerable among us.”
Reynolds responded to the injunction with a statement on Monday, saying, “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 expect a decision that will finally provide justice for the unborn.”
Reynolds signed the measure, putting the law into existence, but the judge’s interim order on Monday afternoon prevented it from taking effect. Due to the law’s temporary blockade, the previous law’s abortion restrictions—which permitted abortions up until the 20th week of pregnancy—will resume in the state.
The new law was passed last week by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature during a protracted, 15-hour special session that Reynolds convened specifically to push what she dubbed “pro-life legislation.”
The new rule contains exceptions for the woman’s life, miscarriages, fetal abnormalities declared by a doctor to be “incompatible with life,” as well as for pregnancies brought on by rape and incest. If the rape was reported to law enforcement or a “public or private health agency” (which includes a family doctor) within 45 days and the incest was reported to any of those officials or organizations within 140 days, then those exceptions would apply.
Advocates for reproductive rights claim that a six-week restriction is equivalent to a complete prohibition because many women don’t even realize they are pregnant at that point in time.
Less than 12 hours after the Legislature passed the ban, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, and the Emma Goldman Clinic, a women’s healthcare facility in Iowa City, filed a lawsuit to prevent the law from taking effect on Wednesday, claiming it violates the Iowa Constitution.
Reproductive rights organizations had warned that if the law went into force straight away, it would cause panic among the state’s patients and abortion facilities. In preparation for Friday’s signing, Planned Parenthood officials said clinics in the state were open Thursday until 10 p.m. to provide care.
They had urged Seidlin to prevent the law from taking effect at all in their lawsuit.
Seidlin stated that their plea “requires my strong and lengthy attention” and that he “could not think of anything that could be more insulting” than giving a decision on the challenge quickly in a hearing that took place concurrently with Reynolds’ signing ceremony on Friday.
Reproductive rights organizations applauded the decision on Monday.
According to Ruth Richardson, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood North Central States, “today’s ruling means patients across Iowa will be able to access abortion care and retain control over their bodies and futures.” The organization, she continued, “will continue to oppose this egregious, unconstitutional ban as it works its way through the courts.”
A few weeks prior, the state Supreme Court’s split judgment allowing the earlier six-week abortion ban that lawmakers had passed in 2018 to remain permanently barred was the catalyst for the passage of the current bill.
The new one is nearly identical to the six-week restriction that is still being challenged, but because the state Supreme Court will be hearing the case in its entirety, the outcome may be different this time.
The state Supreme Court’s split judgment from last month was specifically designed and partly based on procedural considerations, so it’s still possible, if not likely, that the entire seven-member court might come to an agreement on a new prohibition.
Dana Oxley, a Reynolds appointment and one of the court’s seven justices, disqualified herself from the litigation against the 2018 law because her prior legal practice represented an abortion facility that was a plaintiff in the initial lawsuit.
In the split ruling from last month, three justices expressed a legal criterion known as “rational basis” that would permit a six-week abortion limit going forward.
A definite, legally-binding majority in favor of a six-week moratorium would most certainly be reached if Oxley were included in the next decision.
Contrarily, reproductive rights organizations said that judges continue to apply a stricter criteria known as the “undue burden” standard in their legal challenge to the most recent statute, which was submitted last week.
Although that criterion was repealed nationally when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision last year, it is still in force in Iowa.
Share your thoughts