DES MOINES, Iowa (Legal Newsline) - An Iowa law banning abortions after a fetus' heartbeat is detected is constitutional, the state's supreme court has ruled.
Justices on June 28 reversed a temporary injunction against a 2023 law that has doctors performing abdominal ultrasounds to detect cardiac activity then informing the pregnant woman in writing whether any was heard. The woman is then informed abortion is prohibited and must sign a form acknowledging this information.
The only abortions allowed at this stage are pregnancies that cause medical emergencies or were the result of rape or incest. The Iowa Supreme Court has already held abortion is not a fundamental right.
Polk County judge Joseph Seidlin had issued a temporary injunction against the heartbeat law but was reversed by the state Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Matthew McDermott.
"(W)e conclude that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting unborn life," he wrote.
The case drew considerable interest, with several groups filing amicus briefs. Among them were the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa Foundation, Foundation for Moral Law, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 17 state attorneys general, 45 Iowa lawmakers, the National Infertility Association and the American Medical Association.
Judge Seidlin had applied the "undue burden" test when reviewing the constitutionality of the statute, and the Supreme Court was urged by Planned Parenthood to apply heightened scrutiny factors under that test.
The high court said no other state appears to have applied the undue burden standard to a law restricting abortion based on a due process claim and instead applied the rational basis test.
"Every ground the State identifies is a legitimate interest for the legislature to pursue, and the restrictions on abortion in the fetal heartbeat statute are rationally related to advancing them," Justice McDermott wrote.
"As a result, Planned Parenthood's substantive due process challenge fails."
The case split the court 4-3. Justices Christopher McDonald, Dana Oxley and David May made up the majority.
Chief Justice Susan Christensen and Justice Edward Mansfield authored dissenting opinions, also joined by Thomas Waterman.
"Today, our court's majority strips Iowa women of their bodily autonomy by holding that there is no fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under our state constitution," Christensen wrote.
"I cannot stand by this decision. The majority's rigid approach relies heavily on the male-dominated history and traditions of the 1800s, all while ignoring how far women's rights have come since the Civil War era.
"It is a bold assumption to think that the drafters of the state constitution intended for their interpretation to stand still while we move forward as a society. Instead, we should interpret our constitution through a modern lens that recognizes how our lives have changed with the passage of time."
Christensen wrote women have not been given the same freedoms, privileges and protections as men in Iowa's history, detailing the lack of women on constitutional conventions in the mid-19th century.
Black men were allowed to vote by 1870 but women of all races weren't given that right until 1919, she wrote.