Abortion is not protected under the Iowa constitution, state Supreme Court rules

DES MOINES, Iowa – The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday overruled a 2018 decision that protected abortion under the state constitution.

That decision — coupled with the potential overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion — would give Iowa lawmakers significantly more freedom to pass and enforce restrictive abortion laws.

The Iowa Supreme Court's reversal came in a fractured decision that reverses a lower court's decision to block a 2020 law that put in place 24-hour waiting period before an abortion. The majority opinion said the Supreme Court's previous ruling establishing a constitutional right to an abortion "insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake.”

The ruling sends the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

SCOTUS decision: If Roe v. Wade is overturned, here's how abortion laws in each state will stand

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland challenged the 2020 law, arguing that its passage had violated procedural rules and that the waiting period was unconstitutional.

The composition of the court has shifted since the 2018 decision, with Iowa's Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, appointing four of the seven justices.

While rejecting a constitutional guarantee of the right to abortion, Friday's decision did not say what the new standard should be.

"Although we overrule (the 2018 decision), and thus reject the proposition that there is a fundamental right to an abortion in Iowa’s Constitution subjecting abortion regulation to strict scrutiny, we do not at this time decide what constitutional standard should replace it," wrote Justice Edward Mansfield, who penned the majority opinion.

More: Abortions in the US have increased for the first time in 30 years, new survey finds

Split court disagrees on best path forward

While the Friday decision strikes down the 2018 precedent, the justices were divided on what should replace it. Two justices wanted abortion to remain a constitutional right in Iowa, while two others wanted to remove nearly all legal impediments to abortion legislation.

Only two justices, Dana Oxley and Thomas Waterman, joined Mansfield for the full majority opinion. Chief Justice Susan Christensen and justices Christopher McDonald and Matthew McDermott joined Mansfield’s opinion in parts. Justice Brent Appel, the sole Democratic appointee on the court, wrote a dissenting opinion, and McDermott and Christensen both filed partial dissents.

The fractured opinion shows the justices conflicted over how Iowa courts should proceed as they await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the fate of Roe.

How will the decision impact Iowa abortion laws?

Republican leaders in Iowa have passed laws to impose waiting periods or forbid abortion much earlier in pregnancy, only to see those laws blocked by the courts.

Friday's decision means anti-abortion lawmakers in Iowa will no longer need to contend with state-level constitutional protections, which would have remained in place even if the Roe case is overturned.

Gov. Reynolds celebrated the Iowa Supreme Court decision in a Friday morning statement.

“Today’s ruling is a significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed its earlier 2018 decision, which made Iowa the most abortion-friendly state in the country," Reynolds said. "Every life is sacred and should be protected, and as long as I’m governor that is exactly what I will do.”

In Wyoming: Police looking for woman who tried to burn down lone Wyoming abortion clinic before it could open

For the moment, Iowa lawmakers must still contend with Roe, which federally protects the right to an abortion before the fetus is viable outside the womb.

But if the U.S. Supreme Court adopts a leaked majority opinion in the upcoming decision, Roe will be reversed, giving individual states leeway to pass and enforce laws that limit abortions even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

For subscribers: Online data, medical records could be used to put women in jail under new abortion laws

Reynolds has declined to speculate about whether she would call lawmakers back to Des Moines for a special session on abortion.

House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, said the decision "is a positive step in our fight to protect the unborn." He did not offer specific legislative plans, but reaffirmed his caucus's commitment against abortion.

"As we work to understand the full impact of this decision, Iowans can be assured that Iowa House Republicans are strongly pro-life and remain committed to protecting the unborn and providing additional support for new mothers," Grassley said.

Democrats decried the ruling Friday morning. House Minority Leader Jennifer Konfrst said it was a "step backwards for Iowa families."

"Iowans should always have the final say in making their own healthcare decisions, including abortion, without interference from politicians," Konfrst, D-Windsor Heights, said in a statement.

Why did the court rule its 2018 decision was wrong?

Mansfield wrote that “stare decisis,” or respect for precedent, does not block the court from reconsidering even relatively recent decisions, writing that “we do not agree that every state supreme court decision is entitled to some minimum try-out period before it can be challenged.”

And on the merits, Mansfield believes, the court got it wrong in 2018. Even other states that have recognized constitutional protections for abortion have done so in more limited fashions, Mansfield wrote, while he argues that Iowa’s 2018 decision went beyond even Roe v. Wade in the protection it affords to abortion rights.

Mansfield, who was in the minority against the 2018 decision, also wrote that the 2018 decision diverged from Iowa’s historical and legal precedents and improperly waded into a divisive social and political debate.

"We agree with the (the 2018 decision) that 'autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.' We also agree that 'being a parent is a life-altering obligation that falls unevenly on women in our society,’” wrote Mansfield, who was in the minority against the 2018 decision. "Yet, we must disapprove of (the 2018 case's) legal formulation that insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake.”

Follow Katie Akin on Twitter at @katie_akin. Follow William Morris on Twitter at @DMRMorris.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa Supreme Court: Abortion is not protected in state constitution