DES MOINES, Iowa (CN) — A bill passed by the Iowa Legislature in 2018 that would ban abortions at the point a fetal heartbeat is detected cannot be enforced as a result of an evenly divided Iowa Supreme Court’s failure to lift an injunction put in place by a state district judge four years ago.
Three members of the state’s high court issued an opinion Friday saying they would not have lifted the injunction because the Polk County District Court did not act illegally or beyond its jurisdiction. Three justices writing separately disagreed, saying they would have lifted the injunction. A seventh justice recused herself from the case entirely. She did not state a reason, following the justices’ longtime practice.
Because there was no controlling decision, the trial court’s injunction remains in place, the so-called fetal heartbeat bill cannot be enforced, and Iowa’s existing abortion law, which allows for abortions up to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, remains on the books. That is at least unless or until the Iowa Legislature was to reenact the statute, which presumably would set off another round of litigation and appeals.
Iowa’s Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, who is named as a defendant in the case and is a vocal abortion opponent, criticized the court in a statement released Friday morning.
“To say that today’s lack of action by the Iowa Supreme Court is a disappointment is an understatement,” the governor said. “Not only does it disregard Iowa voters who elected representatives willing to stand up for the rights of unborn children, but it has sided with a single judge in a single county who struck down Iowa’s legislation based on principles that now have been flat-out rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Reynolds said she is reviewing “our options in preparation for continuing the fight.”
Republican leaders in the Iowa Senate and House – both of which are controlled by the GOP – indicated they will step into the breach created by the state Supreme Court’s inaction on the abortion bill.
“Senate Republicans have a consistent record of defending life, including the passage of the Heartbeat Bill," Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver said in a statement Friday. "We will work with Governor Reynolds and the House to advance pro-life policies to protect the unborn.”
Iowa House Speaker Pat Grassley agreed: “We feel strongly that the Heartbeat Bill is a good piece of legislation that would save the innocent lives of unborn children. Going forward we will work together to pass legislation that will protect life, support new mothers, and promote strong families in Iowa.”
Planned Parenthood leaders applauded the outcome Friday.
“Today’s order is an enormous win,” Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, said in a statement, “and it means that Iowans will be able to control their bodies and their futures. Your ZIP code shouldn’t determine who controls your uterus. Each person deserves control of their body, and Iowans have that right, based on today’s court decision. Abortion bans make pregnancy more dangerous than it already is, and it shouldn’t matter which state you live in.”
Friday’s divided Iowa Supreme Court decision came in an appeal brought by the state urging the court to lift the Polk County District Court’s 2019 injunction barring enforcement of the law that would outlaw most abortions after a heartbeat of the fetus is detectable with an ultrasound test.
The trial judge based the injunction on a 2018 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that found a fundamental right to abortion under the Iowa Constitution, and on U.S. Supreme Court precedent beginning with Roe v. Wade. Four years later, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed its decision, holding that the case was wrongly decided, and two weeks after that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe.
The state then asked the Polk County District Court to dissolve its injunction in light of the Iowa and federal decisions, arguing there had been a “substantial change in the law.” The trial court denied the state’s motion, however, saying it lacked inherent authority to dissolve an injunction based on a substantial change in the law, and that there had not been a substantial change in the law because the Iowa Supreme Court left in place the “undue burden standard” of review in abortion cases established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
In its appeal in this case, the state asked the Iowa Supreme Court to hold that rational-basis review is the correct standard for assessing challenges to abortion legislation, under which the state argued the fetal-heartbeat bill would be upheld.
Follow @@roxalaird16
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
