Iowa Supreme Court Lifts Temporary Injunction on 6-Week Abortion Ban

Iowa Supreme Court Lifts Temporary Injunction on 6-Week Abortion Ban

The Iowa Supreme Court lifted the temporary injunction on the state’s six-week abortion ban.

I have to stress this point. The ruling does not uphold the law. It dissolved the temporary injunction, which would have stopped the law from going into effect as the case Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Kim Reynolds proceedings continue through the courts.

“We have previously held that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution,” wrote Justice McDermott. “Applying our established tiers of scrutiny, we hold that abortion restrictions alleged to violate the due process clause are subject to the rational basis test. Employing that test here, we conclude that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life.”

The ban does not apply to cases of rape, incest, or saving the mother’s life.

Again, remember, the ruling does not uphold the law. The ruling means the law can go into effect as proceedings continue for the case (emphasis mine):

On July 17, the district court held that Planned Parenthood had standing to bring its claims, the case was ripe, and that an injunction should be issued barring the State from enforcing the fetal heartbeat law until a final ruling in the case. The district court also ordered that the Iowa Board of Medicine, which is tasked with creating administrative rules to implement the statute, should nevertheless proceed with rulemaking. The State sought interlocutory review of the district court order, which we granted.

The order challenged in this appeal was not a final judgment on the merits but rather an order granting a motion for temporary injunction. The State argues that the district court erred in its analysis and asks us to dissolve the temporary injunction. Although the district court discussed several considerations when deciding whether to grant the temporary injunction, both the district court in its order and the parties in their briefs focus on whether Planned Parenthood can show a “likelihood of success on the merits.” Max 100 L.C. v. Iowa Realty Co., 621 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 2001) (en banc). For a court to enter a temporary injunction, the parties requesting it must convince the court that they are likely to succeed at the conclusion of the case after all the evidence is heard. League of United Latin Am. Citizens of Iowa v. Pate, 950 N.W.2d 204, 208–09 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam). Temporary injunctions are equitable remedies intended to prevent irreparable harm from occurring before the court has had a chance to determine if the alleged legal wrong occurred. Id. at 209. There’s no basis to provide a temporary remedy if a plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success in ultimately proving that legal wrong. Id.

The district court issued the injunction because it said Planned Parenthood would “likely succeed in its constitutional challenge under an undue burden standard.”

Except, as Justice McDermott pointed out earlier. The Iowa Supreme Court already ruled the state’s constitution does not include a right to abortion.

“The legislature’s power does not extend to lawmaking that violates a constitutional provision,” wrote the majority. “Our constitution provides that it ‘shall be the supreme law of the State’ and any inconsistent law ‘shall be void.'”

Abortion does not exist in the Iowa Constitution, just like it doesn’t exist in the U.S. Constitution.

The courts usually determine a right is fundamental if it is “deeply rooted” in America’s “history and tradition.”

The Iowa Supreme Court applied that principle, known as substantive due process, to the state:

We answered the question whether abortion is a “fundamental right” in PPH 2022. See 975 N.W.2d at 740. In that case, we held that obtaining an abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution, expressly overruling PPH 2018. Id. at 740, 742. We first examined the text of the Iowa Constitution. Id. We concluded that the text offered “no support for [a] reading of the due process clause as providing fundamental protection for abortion.” Id. at 740.

We then analyzed the state’s treatment of abortion throughout its history. Id. A right to an abortion, as the historical record shows, is not rooted at all in our state’s history and tradition, let alone “deeply” rooted. See id. at 740–41. The deep roots that exist show not protection for abortion rights but common law and statutory prohibitions on abortion from the very beginning through modern times. Id. Abortion became a crime in Iowa “just six months after the effective date of the Iowa Constitution—and remained generally illegal until Roe v. Wade[,410 U.S. 113 (1973),] was decided over one hundred years later.” Id. at 740. “Historically,” we concluded, “there is no support for abortion as a fundamental constitutional right in Iowa.” Id.

Planned Parenthood tried to argue the “undue burden” standard established in Casey. But the majority agreed with Casey’s dissenters:

The undue burden test requires judges to determine whether an abortion regulation will “prevent” or “deter” a “significant number of women from obtaining an abortion.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 893–94. But the test offers no guidance on how much prevention or deterrence will cause an abortion regulation to violate the Constitution. See Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 284 (“Casey’s ‘line between’ permissible and unconstitutional restrictions ‘has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.’ ” (quoting Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 921 (2018))). An undue burden standard inevitably leaves courts unable to provide predictability, consistency, or coherence in its application. We already have well-established tiers of review that we routinely apply when analyzing whether a regulation infringes constitutional due process rights.

“Under the rational basis test, Planned Parenthood cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of its substantive due process challenge,” concluded McDermott. “We thus hold that Planned Parenthood is not entitled to a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the fetal heartbeat statute.”

Those who break the law do not face criminal penalties. Instead, the violation “may constitute grounds for discipline.”

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.