Iowa Gov. Reynolds, AG Bird lay out legal arguments for abortion restrictions

DES MOINES — Newly created restrictions on abortions currently blocked by a district court judge should be allowed to go into effect, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ administration is arguing to the Iowa Supreme Court, according to court documents.

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, arguing on behalf of Reynolds, in the court filing dated Friday argues the Iowa Supreme Court should determine that a lower legal standard of review is appropriate for abortion restrictions in the wake of 2022 rulings by the Iowa and U.S. Supreme Courts.

And with that lower legal standard, the new abortion restrictions passed by Republican state lawmakers during a special legislative session and signed into law by Reynolds earlier this month should be allowed to go into effect, Bird argues.

The new abortion restrictions have been blocked since Monday, July 17, by a district court injunction. So, for the time being, abortion remains legal in Iowa until the 20th week of pregnancy.

“That ruling impedes the State’s substantial rights to enforce duly enacted legislation and to protect unborn life. And it was based on an error of law. It deserves appellate review now,” Bird said in the court filing.

Separate rulings by the Iowa Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 effectively erased legal protections for abortion access up to roughly 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The new state law prohibits abortions once cardiac activity can be detected. Supporters of the restrictions say that is typically around the sixth week of pregnancy, which often is before an individual is aware they are pregnant. Advocates for abortion access say such a prohibition would ban 96 percent of abortions that are currently legal.

In a previous legal challenge to similar abortion restrictions after those momentous 2022 rulings, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled only on a procedural question, not on the constitutionality of the law itself or which legal standard of review should be applied.

Reynolds and Bird are asking the Iowa Supreme Court to now determine that new legal standard. They are arguing that the previous legal standard of “undue burden,” used before those 2022 rulings, should no longer apply, and that now a lower legal standard of “rational basis” should apply.

Reynolds and Bird then argue that under “rational basis,” the new abortion restrictions should be determined constitutional and that the lower court’s blockage of the law should be removed.

“This Court should grant interlocutory review and recognize that rational basis review applies to abortion restrictions, find that the Fetal Heartbeat Statute survives rational basis review, dissolve the temporary injunction, and render for the State,” Bird argues in the court filing.

“Only this Court can harmonize Iowa law,” Bird adds.

The legal challenge to the new law was brought by the same parties who challenged similar legislation passed in 2018: the women’s reproductive health care and abortion services provider Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the ACLU of Iowa, and the Emma Goldman Clinic.

“This appeal is yet another dangerous attempt to force politicians into Iowans’ exam rooms. We remain committed to protecting the right of all Iowans to access abortion care and are prepared to fight the state’s appeal,” Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, said in a statement. “Make no mistake: despite this appeal, the temporary injunction against the six-week ban remains in effect. Abortion is legal in Iowa. We will continue to provide the compassionate abortion care that Iowans need and deserve as we await the next ruling.”

In the court filing, Bird argued the Iowa Supreme Court should determine the legal standard of review prior to any other legal proceedings in the case. Bird argued that any other legal review of the case without that standard of review guidance would be “litigating under uncertainty.”

“If this Court does not clarify the standard before summary judgment, the Parties, and the district court, are then bound to the inefficient path of litigating under uncertainty. They will potentially waste significant time and resources developing a factual record that is irrelevant — until the inevitable appeal after a ruling on the merits,” Bird argues in the filing. “Only after a ruling by this Court will the Parties — and the district court — know the applicable standard for reviewing regulations protecting unborn life under Iowa law.”

“Eventually, this Court will have the final answer on what standard,” Bird also argues. “It is in no Party’s interest to litigate under uncertainty while this important societal issue remains undetermined.”

Planned Parenthood v. Kim Reynolds, Application for Interlocutory Appeal by Gazetteonline on Scribd

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com