The Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday that the state’s six-week abortion ban can stand, a decision that dramatically limits access to the procedure and fulfills a long-standing goal of the state’s Republican leaders.
The 4-3 decision significantly limited the time limit for legal abortions in Iowa – the previous standard was 22 weeks – and meant many women could travel to neighboring states like Illinois or Minnesota to undergo the procedure. For Iowa Republicans, the decision marks the fulfillment of a long-held policy goal and a vindication after previous setbacks in the courts. For Democrats, it was a painful reminder of how much political ground they lost in Iowa and, they hoped, a warning to voters across the country that Republicans would continue to try to limit abortion where they gain power.
“There is no right more sacred than life, and nothing more deserving of our highest defense than the innocent unborn,” Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds said in a statement, adding, “I am pleased that the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the will of the people of Iowa.”
State Sen. Pam Jochum, the top Democratic senator in her chamber, called it “a tragic day in Iowa history.”
“This despicable and dangerous decision cannot be the final word on reproductive rights and personal liberty in Iowa,” she said in a statement. “Activist judges and anti-choice Republicans cannot be allowed to control the lives of Iowans.”
Since the U.S. Supreme Court ended the nation’s right to abortion in 2022, state legislatures and courts have become central battlegrounds over the issue. Many conservative statesprimarily in the South and Midwest, have moved to ban or sharply limit the procedure, while other states have adopted new abortion protections.
In Iowa, Republican lawmakers, who dominate the state legislature, have twice tried to enact a six-week ban. The state Supreme Court, comprised of Republican members, deadlocked last year over whether the first law, passed in 2018, should be enforced, leaving a lower court’s injunction in place.
Ms. Reynolds responded by calling a special session, during which Republicans quickly passed another six-week ban despite objections from Democrats and abortion rights supporters. A state district court had application blocked as the new law was challenged, meaning women in the state could continue to seek abortions up to about 22 weeks into pregnancy.
Abortion remains legal in some states bordering Iowa, including Illinois and Minnesota. Other neighboring states, such as Missouri and South Dakota, have banned the procedure in almost all circumstances.
THE Iowa Law of 2023 which became the subject of a legal challenge allowed for abortions until there was what the legislation calls a “detectable fetal heartbeat”, a term which medical groups dispute. The law assumed that this was about six weeks of pregnancy, before many women knew they were pregnant.
The law then provided exceptions in cases of rape or incest, when the woman’s life was in serious danger or she was at risk of certain permanent injuries, or when foetal abnormalities “incompatible with life” were present.
A Des Moines Register-Mediacom Iowa Poll Last year, a study found that 61 percent of adults in the state believed abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 35 percent believed it should be illegal in most or all cases. in all cases.
But while Democrats have run nationally for abortion rights in recent elections, State legislative chambers resume And hold governorshipsThe party failed in Iowa, which was not long ago a key presidential state. In 2022, Governor Reynolds was re-elected by a landslideRepublicans won the state’s congressional seats, and voters removed the attorney general and treasurer, both Democrats, from office held this position for decades.
President Biden has sought to make abortion a central issue of his campaign again this year, but Iowa is unlikely to be competitive in November. Former President Donald J. Trump carried the state by significant margins in 2016 and 2020.
The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision focused on the question of what standard of review to apply to the new restrictions. The plaintiffs wanted the law to be reviewed based on whether it posed an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions, while the state’s attorneys said they only needed to prove that lawmakers had a “rational basis” for enacting the restrictions.
The four-judge majority sided with the state’s lawyers and said lawmakers acted properly according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s standards established in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the nation’s right to abortion.
“Each ground identified by the state constitutes a legitimate interest that the legislature must pursue, and the abortion restrictions in the fetal heartbeat law are rationally connected to their advancement,” Justice Matthew McDermott, who was appointed by Ms. Reynolds, wrote in the majority opinion.
In a dissent, Chief Justice Susan Christensen, also a Reynolds appointee, said that “the court’s majority deprives Iowa women of their bodily autonomy by holding that there is no fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under our state constitution.”
“I cannot support this decision,” the chief justice wrote. “The majority’s rigid approach relies heavily on the male-dominated history and traditions of the 1800s, while ignoring the advances in women’s rights since the Civil War era.”
