Posted on Jun 18, 2022
Iowa Supreme Court strips constitutional protections for abortion care
1.19K
13
3
5
5
0
Iowa’s Supreme Court has overruled a 2018 decision protecting abortion access under the state’s constitution, opening the door for more abortion restrictions in the state as the US Supreme Court prepares for its likely decision to overturn federal protections for abortion care.
A decision from the state’s highest court on 17 June reverses a lower court ruling to block a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, arguing that the ruling from just four years ago that affirmed a constitutional right to abortion care “insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake”.
The ruling from the court – now composed almost entirely of Republican appointees – means anti-abortion legislators no longer must contend with the state’s constitutional protections for abortion care, which could have remained in place even if the Supreme Court does undermine Roe.
Friday’s decision sends a case challenging the waiting period law back to a lower court.
A decision from the state’s highest court on 17 June reverses a lower court ruling to block a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, arguing that the ruling from just four years ago that affirmed a constitutional right to abortion care “insufficiently recognizes that future human lives are at stake”.
The ruling from the court – now composed almost entirely of Republican appointees – means anti-abortion legislators no longer must contend with the state’s constitutional protections for abortion care, which could have remained in place even if the Supreme Court does undermine Roe.
Friday’s decision sends a case challenging the waiting period law back to a lower court.
Iowa Supreme Court strips constitutional protections for abortion care
Posted from independent.co.uk
Abortion
Medical
Health
Supreme Court
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
6
6
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel sign of the times Brother William.
Lt Col Charlie Brown SSG Michael Noll Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Cpl Vic Burk SGT (Join to see) PO2 Marco Monsalve SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth ] SSG William Jones Sgt (Join to see) SrA John Monette SFC (Join to see) SPC Michael Terrell SMSgt Anil Heendeniya CPL Douglas Chrysler A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney GySgt Jack Wallace CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD SGT Mark Anderson SGT Steve McFarland
Lt Col Charlie Brown SSG Michael Noll Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen Cpl Vic Burk SGT (Join to see) PO2 Marco Monsalve SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth ] SSG William Jones Sgt (Join to see) SrA John Monette SFC (Join to see) SPC Michael Terrell SMSgt Anil Heendeniya CPL Douglas Chrysler A1C Medrick "Rick" DeVaney GySgt Jack Wallace CDR Andrew McMenamin, PhD SGT Mark Anderson SGT Steve McFarland
(6)
(0)
2
2
0
I'm going to hate to say this but let the states do as they wish. It may not be right to some but it's right to others. Small government means each state does as it wishes. I'm not for or against abortion. I'm a man I've got no skin the game. I've got no plans to have kids. Don't plan to marry. But be it this or gun rights we can't do anything without freaking the majority out who care about each issue individually.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."What does high-profile reversal mean for the court?
Both Mansfield and the dissenters acknowledged the concern that such a quick reversal on such a high-profile question could undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the court.
Christensen, one of the justices appointed since the 2018 decision, warned that the court was acting too quickly. Reversing a prior decision requires "special justification" beyond the belief that the prior case was wrongly decided, she wrote.
The decision also creates implementation concerns, she wrote, tasking a district court with reviewing the proper legal standard for abortion cases at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is considering reversing Roe and the Legislature is working to amend the Iowa Constitution.
"Current state and federal constitutional abortion jurisprudence is like a game of Jenga, progressively becoming more unstable until it collapses," she wrote. "... Flawed as the majority believes (the 2018 decision) to be, it at least untethered Iowa from the vulnerable federal standard to provide some sense of stability to Iowa’s abortion jurisprudence."
A group of University of Iowa and Drake University law professors who filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the decision urged the majority to uphold the 2018 decision out of respect for precedent, which they characterized as necessary to show justices are not simply following their own policy preferences
Disregarding precedent "leaves a supreme court free to pick and choose the precedents it likes, calling into question the court’s integrity and legitimacy, making the Court’s decisions unpredictable, and disrespecting the rule of law." the professors argued.
Mansfield in his opinion noted multiple cases in recent years in which the Supreme Court has reversed itself, sometimes even faster than in this case. He dismissed the professors' concern that the court might appear to be motivated by policy goals rather than legal principles.
"We know that the professors do not share that cynical view, so why do they ask us to act in fear of it?" he wrote. "Shouldn’t we instead follow our solemn oaths to uphold the Iowa laws and constitution? In the end, court decisions should be — and we believe are — judged by the strength of their reasoning, not by the identity of the persons who wrote or joined them."
..."What does high-profile reversal mean for the court?
Both Mansfield and the dissenters acknowledged the concern that such a quick reversal on such a high-profile question could undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the court.
Christensen, one of the justices appointed since the 2018 decision, warned that the court was acting too quickly. Reversing a prior decision requires "special justification" beyond the belief that the prior case was wrongly decided, she wrote.
The decision also creates implementation concerns, she wrote, tasking a district court with reviewing the proper legal standard for abortion cases at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is considering reversing Roe and the Legislature is working to amend the Iowa Constitution.
"Current state and federal constitutional abortion jurisprudence is like a game of Jenga, progressively becoming more unstable until it collapses," she wrote. "... Flawed as the majority believes (the 2018 decision) to be, it at least untethered Iowa from the vulnerable federal standard to provide some sense of stability to Iowa’s abortion jurisprudence."
A group of University of Iowa and Drake University law professors who filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the decision urged the majority to uphold the 2018 decision out of respect for precedent, which they characterized as necessary to show justices are not simply following their own policy preferences
Disregarding precedent "leaves a supreme court free to pick and choose the precedents it likes, calling into question the court’s integrity and legitimacy, making the Court’s decisions unpredictable, and disrespecting the rule of law." the professors argued.
Mansfield in his opinion noted multiple cases in recent years in which the Supreme Court has reversed itself, sometimes even faster than in this case. He dismissed the professors' concern that the court might appear to be motivated by policy goals rather than legal principles.
"We know that the professors do not share that cynical view, so why do they ask us to act in fear of it?" he wrote. "Shouldn’t we instead follow our solemn oaths to uphold the Iowa laws and constitution? In the end, court decisions should be — and we believe are — judged by the strength of their reasoning, not by the identity of the persons who wrote or joined them."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google