DES MOINES — Lawyers for Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds argued on Thursday that the state Supreme Court should allow a “fetal heartbeat” abortion ban to take effect, while opponents fought to keep the measure blocked in court.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the law, which a district court blocked last year shortly after Reynolds signed it following a special legislative session to enact the restriction.
The arguments are the latest in a long legal battle abortion restrictions in the state. The law would ban abortion once cardiac activity can be detected in a fetus, which can be as early as six weeks.
The justices questioned lawyers for the state and Planned Parenthood on Thursday, largely focusing on which legal standard should be applied to the law.
People are also reading…
Since Iowa's Supreme Court no longer recognizes a fundamental right to abortion in the state constitution, Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan argued the lower-level “rational basis” standard should be applied and the law should take effect. He argued the “undue burden” standard imposed by federal law before Roe v. Wade was overturned should no longer apply.
“This court has never before recognized a quasi-fundamental, or a fundamental-ish right,” he said. “It’s a binary choice.”
A similar law was passed and signed in 2018, but a district court found it unconstitutional under a previous state court decision which declared a fundamental right to an abortion existed in the state constitution.
The Iowa Supreme Court in 2022 reversed that standard, but stated that Iowa was bound by the “undue burden” standard then imposed by federal precedent that guaranteed a right to an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade days later, removing that federal standard and overturning the 50-year-old federal right to abortion.
Then in 2023, Reynolds unsuccessfully asked the Iowa Supreme Court to revive the 2018 law. The court did not approve that request, prompting Republican lawmakers to pass a nearly identical law that summer. A district court blocked that law shortly after, saying that it violated the standard set out in the court’s 2022 opinion.
Peter Im, the lawyer for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, said the district court was correct in its decision and the law should remain blocked. The law’s opponents argued it violates several areas of the state constitution, including due process and a guarantee of equal rights for women.
“There is no document that says that this court should defer to the Legislature when the Legislature passes a law that rides roughshod over the rights of Iowans to exercise bodily autonomy,” Im said.
Planned Parenthood is asking the Supreme Court to send the case back to the district court, where they hope to develop their arguments further.
Reynolds: 'The unborn had their day' in court
Reynolds, a Republican, said in a statement on Thursday that the overturning of Roe v. Wade gave states the right to decide how to limit abortion.
“For Iowa, the people’s elected representatives have drawn a clear line, multiple times, at when a heartbeat begins,” Reynolds said. “Today, the unborn had their day at the Iowa Supreme Court. As a pro-life governor, I will do everything I can to protect the innocent unborn and promote strong, healthy families.”
Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, who was in the courtroom for oral arguments on Thursday, said in a statement she would continue to defend the state law and she was confident it would be found constitutional.
“No right is more sacred than the right to life. Today, my office made our case in the Iowa Supreme Court to defend Iowa’s heartbeat law, which protects unborn life and prioritizes mothers’ health," Bird said.
Lawmakers weigh in
Iowa Sen. Janice Weiner, a Democrat from Iowa City, said that the arguments presented by Planned Parenthood were convincing and called the law an unconstitutional attempt “to control the bodies of Iowans and their futures.”
“Iowans value their freedom, and that includes the freedom to make decisions about their bodies and their healthcare with their doctors. A majority of Iowans oppose attacks on their healthcare choices,” Weiner said in a statement.
House Speaker Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, told reporters on Thursday that Republicans are confident in the legislation and hopeful that it will survive the legal challenge.
"It was something that we were willing to even come in for a special session, we felt so strongly about it," he said. "So we're obviously hopeful that they would (uphold) it, but I'm not going to make any predictions on whether they would uphold it or not."
Justice questions exceptions
In the 2023 decision that upheld the injunction in the 2018 law, Iowa’s seven-member Supreme Court was split 3-3 between justices who favored keeping the injunction and those who favored lifting it. Justice Dana Oxley recused herself, but she has not recused herself from the current case.
Some justices expressed skepticism about parts of the state’s argument on Thursday, but others showed a willingness to uphold the law. Reynolds has appointed five of the court's justices, while two were appointed by former Republican Gov. Terry Branstad.
Chief Justice Susan Christensen questioned the rationale of the exceptions allowed under the heartbeat bill, suggesting they may not survive legal scrutiny. The law allows an exception to the restriction for cases of rape that are reported within 45 days and incest that is reported within 140 days, as well as exceptions when the life of the mother is threatened.
She said the time limit imposed is too narrow to feasibly allow those cases to be reported.
“Isn’t that kind of more or less shutting the door on all rapes and incest? Because I think that anyone who’s prosecuted or been a part of that world knows that those numbers are very unrealistic for actually being reported," she said.
Wessan said the law only requires that the woman seeking an abortion report the rape or incest to her doctor and not to a law enforcement agency, calling the policy “not unreasonable."
There is no set date for the court to decide the case, but most cases are decided by the end of the court's term. This year's term ends June 28.