Judge strikes down Iowa abortion law requiring 24-hour waiting period

An Iowa judge struck down a state law on Monday that required those seeking an abortion to wait at least 24 hours.

Iowa District Judge Mitchell Turner sided with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland to rule against the law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in 2020. The ruling claimed the law violated the state’s single subject law that requires every act to “embrace but one subject,” according to the Washington Examiner.

The ruling also said “under the Iowa constitution, that implicit in the concept of ordered liberty is the ability to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.”

“Given this clear precedent, this Court finds that Petitioners have established that a twenty-four hour waiting requirement is an invasion or threatened invasion ‘upon the fundamental rights of the people,’” Turner said in the ruling.

Both Sides Continue to Speak Out

“In a court ruling issued yesterday, an Iowa District Court wrongly struck down our efforts to protect all innocent human life,” Reynolds said in a statement.

“I will be working with our legal counsel to appeal this recent decision, and I believe we can win.”

Planned Parenthood North Central States Director of Public Affairs Jamie Burch Elliott celebrated the decision.

Elliott said, “Once again, the court righted a legislative overreach related to abortion care, and the court’s decision means access to safe and legal abortion in Iowa remains unchanged.”

The Des Moines Register noted the Iowa’s Attorney General’s office plans to appeal the ruling.

One of Many New Pro-Life Laws

The law was one of many pro-life laws passed by conservative legislators nationwide in 2020. Despite states strengthens laws to decrease abortions, courts have often ruled against applying them, leading many to argue the Supreme Court should address the issue.

The Supreme Court has already decided to hear a case regarding Mississippi’s state law later in 2021. With conservatives now holding  a 6-3 advantage in the court, some experts suggest the time is right for pro-life advocates.

The battle between conservative legislation and liberal courts continues to show the divided between America’s values and the attitudes of those leading the nation’s courts as the nation’s pro-life advocates continue to advance their cause.

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook

Welcome to our comments section. We want to hear from you!

Any comments with profanity, advocacy of violence, harassment, personally identifiable information or other violations will be removed. If you feel your comment has been removed in error please contact us!

5 Responses

  1. I make more then $12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 11 to 12 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it…

    GOOD LUCK..HERE ➤➤ http://Www.Jobcash1.com

    1. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h… Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link…

      Try it, you won’t regret it!……….. https://www.paybuzz1.com

  2. You Might Like
  3. The judge’s decision makes no sense.

    Aside from the abhorrence of the murder of unborn children, the idea that waiting 24 hrs is something illegal is absurd.

    Planned Parenthood is a business designed and operated to murder the unborn. They have been trying to promote the lie that they provide counseling and family planning, while in fact their counseling is intended to convince young women to kill the baby they are carrying.

    Providing 24 hours to consider such a decision is completely reasonable. I would argue more time along with an opportunity to seek wise counsel on the implications of terminating a new life vs. raising or even putting a new baby up for adoption make complete sense.

    People get more time than this to decide whether to move their savings into a stock portfolio or money market than this.

    This must be appealed and frankly the judge and legal teams must be examined on the reasons that led to what any reasonable person should see as a clearly unreasonable decision, in spite of any obscure legal precedent or clearly ridiculous law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Latest Posts