A Michigan judge has issued a preliminary injunction against the state's mandatory 24-hour waiting period before receiving an abortion, as well as the state's "informed consent" law and a ban on advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care. The ruling, issued Tuesday, is a victory for advocates seeking greater abortion access in Michigan.
In February, a lawsuit seeking to strike the existing abortion laws was filed in the Michigan Court of Claims by the Center for Reproductive Rights, on behalf of abortion provider Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice. In a 50-page opinion, Judge Sima Patel wrote that a preliminary injunction against the laws was appropriate due to the passage of Proposal 3 in 2022, a ballot measure which enshrined the right to reproductive freedom in the state's constitution.
Proposal 3's passage, Patel wrote, blocks the state from enforcing the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent laws in Michigan, as well as the state's ban on advanced practice clinicians (APCs) providing abortion care. Preliminary injunctions are court orders that prevent a party, in this case the state of Michigan, from continuing a practice deemed harmful to plaintiffs when a judge determines plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their legal challenge.
"Turning to whether the challenged laws burden or infringe upon the freedom to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care, the Court finds, on the record currently before it and for purposes of issuing preliminary injunctive relief, that they do," Patel wrote.
Democrats in the Michigan House of Representatives had introduced legislation to repeal the waiting period and informed consent laws last year, but didn't have the votes to pass it alongside a series of other abortion access measures which ultimately were signed into law .
Patel wrote the waiting period creates a "needless delay" for patients.
"That is, at this time, the Court is convinced that the mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially preventing a patient from having the type of abortion that they prefer," Patel wrote.
The informed consent law also requires patients to fill out and submit a confirmation form affirming they've reviewed specific information. On its website , MDHHS states it "does not necessarily endorse all the information it is required to make available under this statute." Opponents of the requirement say the materials include inaccurate information. Patel wrote the material "certainly impacts the patient’s choice to seek abortion care and encroaches on the patient’s decision-making process."
Not all components of Michigan's informed consent law were enjoined, however. In her ruling, Patel declined to issue a preliminary injunction against a portion of the law that requires abortion providers to determine whether patients have been coerced to receive an abortion.
Patel also wrote that a ban on advanced practice clinicians is unconstitutional after Proposal 3's passage, particularly since APCs provide abortion care in other states. The ban currently only limits access to abortion care in Michigan, she wrote.
Defendants in the case included Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Office, which is obligated to defend the state in any litigation brought against it. While Nessel, a staunch proponent of abortion access, and other state officials listed in the lawsuit didn't oppose an injunction against the abortion laws, lawyers from the Attorney General's Office represented the state after a so-called conflict wall was established so an adversarial defense could be provided.
An inquiry sent to the Attorney General's Office on a potential appeal to Patel's ruling wasn't immediately returned, although Nessel did issue a statement applauding the ruling Tuesday evening.
"These provisions only served to delay and mislead patients, which is contradictory to the goals of healthcare," Nessel said. "We applaud the Court for this decision and remain undeterred in our work to protect reproductive care for all Michigan residents.”
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also applauded the preliminary injunction.
"By removing these barriers to reproductive health care, we will ensure Michigan is a state where you can make the medical decisions that are best for you and your family in consultation with your doctor," Whitmer said.
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com .
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge blocks Michigan's 24-hour waiting period, informed consent laws for abortion
Most Popular
Comments / 0