Iowa judge blocks 24-hour abortion waiting period News
© WikiMedia (Bohao Zhao)
Iowa judge blocks 24-hour abortion waiting period

Judge Mitchell Turner issued a temporary injunction Tuesday blocking enforcement of an Iowa law requiring a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. The injunction was granted while the court hears arguments in a suit challenging the law brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa.

Turner wrote that “This court is bound by Iowa precedent, including the standards clearly set forth” by the Iowa Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision in a 2018 ruling holding that previous Iowa legislation mandating a 72-hour waiting period violated constitutional due process and equal protection rights. Turner also wrote that it was “undisputed” that the previous Iowa Supreme Court case “specifically recognized abortion as a fundamental right.” He also noted that the state is “not permitted to restrict surgical abortion procedures unless they can prove that the ‘infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.'”

The judge ultimately ruled that, while the suit is pending, the state will be “temporarily enjoined from enforcing Section 2 of HF 594, regarding the requirement that women seeking an abortion first receive an ultrasound and certain state-mandated information, and then wait at least 24 hours before returning to a health center to have an abortion.”

The Iowa Attorney General’s Office had also initially argued that plaintiffs did not have sufficient standing to bring the case, but Turner found that argument unconvincing. In addition to equal protection arguments, Planned Parenthood is also challenging the law on the grounds that it violates an Iowa constitutional requirement that a bill contains a single subject. Referencing that challenge, Turner also noted that the “Speaker of the Iowa House apparently found that the Amendment was not germane to the underlying bill it was amending,” although he has withheld further judgment on the matter.

Both plaintiffs in the case have celebrated the injunction, while the state, as of yet, has declined to officially comment.