Court weighs future of Iowa's 'fetal heartbeat' abortion ban: Is it constitutional or not?
Lawyers for Gov. Kim Reynolds and Planned Parenthood clashed in court Friday afternoon over whether an Iowa judge should reinstate a 2018 law banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.
The so-called fetal heartbeat law is intended to ban nearly all abortions after about six weeks, when cardiac impulses are first detected in the embryo. The law includes some exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the pregnant person.
A district court permanently blocked the six-week ban in 2019, citing a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision that found "a woman's right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution."
However, the legal landscape for abortion has changed significantly since then. The Iowa Supreme Court in June ruled that the state does not recognize the fundamental right to an abortion.
Shortly after, the U.S. Supreme Court removed federal protections for abortion when it overturned Roe v. Wade.
The crux of Friday's debate was what legal protections remain for abortion in Iowa, after the back-to-back landmark decisions, and whether the six-week ban should stay blocked or go into effect.
Representatives for Planned Parenthood argued that abortion is still protected by the "undue burden" standard, meaning abortion restrictions that place a substantial burden on patients must be struck down. The June Iowa Supreme Court decision, which came out one week before Roe v. Wade was overturned, reads: "For now, this means that the … undue burden test … remains the governing standard."
Rita Bettis Austen, the ACLU of Iowa legal director and attorney for Planned Parenthood, said the six-week abortion ban would be an undue burden on Iowa women seeking an abortion, and therefore the injunction should be upheld.
"The abortion ban, which was unconstitutional when it passed, remains unconstitutional today," Bettis Austen said.
Lawyers for the state disagreed, noting that the Iowa Supreme Court was open to relitigating the legal standard.
Attorney Christopher Schandevel, representing the state, argued that abortion in Iowa is now covered only by the lowest standard of legal protection, known as "rational basis." It requires a law to be upheld if there is a rational basis on which the Legislature could have thought it would serve legitimate state interests.
"Because now that there is no fundamental right to an abortion in the state of Iowa's constitution or the U.S. Constitution, now it is clear that strict scrutiny is no longer the test, and now that it's clear that the viability line is no more, faithfully applying Iowa binding law requires the court to reach a different result," Schandevel said.
District Judge Celene Gogerty questioned both attorneys about whether the district court has the jurisdiction to reverse a permanent injunction or to decide the new legal standard of protection for abortion.
Schandevel argued courts have an "inherent authority" to alter and enforce permanent injunctions. He said that, because there has been a "substantial change" in the law since the 2019 decision, the court should remove the injunction. Bettis Austen responded that this already-decided case was not the proper vehicle to decide a new legal standard for Iowa's abortion laws.
An October Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll found that a majority of Iowans, 61%, believe abortion should be legal in most or all cases. Iowa adults were split in their opinion of a fetal heartbeat law: 49% of Iowans disagree with the six-week ban, while 45% agree.
Katie Akin is a politics reporter for the Register. Reach her atkakin@registermedia.com or at 410-340-3440. Follow her on Twitter at@katie_akin.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Planned Parenthood, Kim Reynolds lawyers clash on Iowa abortion law
