(C) Iowa Capital Dispatch This story was originally published by Iowa Capital Dispatch and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Iowa Supreme Court hears oral arguments on six-week abortion ban • Iowa Capital Dispatch [1] ['Robin Opsahl', 'Ashley Murray', 'Ariana Figueroa', 'Jennifer Shutt', 'More From Author', '- April'] Date: 2024-04-11 The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday from attorneys representing Gov. Kim Reynolds and Planned Parenthood on what legal standard laws should apply to restrictions on abortion access. The case challenges the six-week abortion ban signed into law during a special session in July 2023. It was brought forward by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the Emma Goldman Clinic — reproductive health care providers that perform abortions — as well as Dr. Sarah Traxler and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. The so-called “fetal heartbeat” law bans abortions after cardiac activity can be detected in an embryo, typically as early as after six weeks of gestation. There are exceptions to the ban in cases of rape, if reported within 45 days to law enforcement or a public health agency or doctor, and in incest, if reported within 140 days, as well as in cases where an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The special session was quickly convened to pass the law following a 3-3 court decision that left an injunction on a similar 2018 law in place, preventing it from taking effect. Justice Thomas D. Waterman wrote in the 2o23 ruling that “uncertainty exists about whether a fetal-heartbeat bill would be passed today,” as it was passed before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the U.S. Constitution did not guarantee a right to abortion. The new six-week abortion ban was blocked by an injunction in an Iowa district court three days after being signed into law. With the Legislature again passing the six-week abortion ban, attorneys for the state argued that the court should now follow up on its 2022 ruling that found the state constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion. That ruling found laws on abortion are not subject to strict scrutiny –a legal test requiring that a law serve a “compelling state interest” using the least restrictive means possible to be deemed valid — but did not name what legal standard should be used to judge abortion laws’ viability in the future. Eric Wessen, representing the state at the Supreme Court on Thursday, argued that the “rational basis” test should be applied when considering the abortion law. The review, a lower standard than strict scrutiny, would mean the law is constitutional if the state has a legitimate reason to enact it. If the court chooses to apply “rational basis” to laws concerning abortion, the injunction will be removed by the district court, Wessen said, as the law is serving several legitimate interests including “the right of life, the important value of health and well-being of mothers (and) the integrity of medical profession.” “I will note that every single state Supreme Court to apply the rational basis standard of review to a fetal heartbeat statute is found that it survived,” Wessen said. Attorney Peter Im, representing Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Iowa, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the “undue burden” standard for reviewing abortion laws. This standard determines whether laws are overly burdensome or restrictive of individual’s fundamental rights. While abortion access is no longer a fundamental right in Iowa, Im said that this higher standard should remain in place as the rational basis test does not properly account for the significance of abortion access in individuals’ lives. “Two years ago, a plurality of this court stated that autonomy and dominion over one’s own body goes into the very heart of what it means to be free,” Im said. “That’s what’s at stake in this case. It’s Iowans’ ability to make decisions, private and personal medical decisions, to exercise bodily autonomy, and to decide whether when and whether to have children. Rational basis is simply inconsistent with the importance of these rights.” Im also brought up concerns about the larger implications the law has on medical treatment in Iowa — specifically referencing “the implications of this ban on people who are seeking to grow their families via in vitro fertilization.” The law contains language related to to “unborn” children — language which was referenced in an Alabama Supreme Court ruling in February that shut down IVF treatment in the state before the legislature moved to protect the treatment. House Speaker Pat Grassley told reporters Thursday that he understood there were concerns about some of the language present in the bill, but that House Republicans are “hopeful” that the court rules the law is constitutional. The House passed a separate bill this year raising penalties for the nonconsensual ending of a pregnancy that changed language from referring to the termination of a pregnancy to the death of an “unborn person.” That legislation was not brought forward by the Senate Judiciary Committee because of concerns related to its potential impact on the availability of IVF treatment in Iowa. “We feel very strongly that we wanted to, obviously, protect life, and we’ve been consistent with that within our caucus,” Grassley said. “We’ve taken a consistent position when it comes to the heartbeat law. I understand some are going to try to point and pick holes in it. But quite frankly, you know, I want to wait and see what the Supreme Court decides before we just sit here and make any speculation on what future actions may need to be or not looked at.” Reynolds released a statement Thursday saying the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade means states have the authority to determine whether to limit abortion. “For Iowa, the people’s elected representatives have drawn a clear line, multiple times, at when a heartbeat begins,” Reynolds said in a news release. “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.” Democrats criticized the abortion ban and called for the court to uphold the injunction. Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said in a news release that the Thursday hearing presented “a clear and convincing argument for upholding the Iowa Constitution, listening to the people of Iowa, and striking down this dangerous law.” “The six-week abortion ban case heard today in Iowa’s highest court remains an unconstitutional attempt by Republican politicians to control the bodies of Iowans and their futures,” Weiner said. “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.” The court has until June 30 to issue a ruling on the six-week abortion ban. [END] --- [1] Url: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/04/11/iowa-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-on-six-week-abortion-ban/ Published and (C) by Iowa Capital Dispatch Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND-NC 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/iowacapitaldispatch/