Court blocks Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period before abortion
A Michigan Court of Claims judge on Tuesday blocked enforcement of several state abortion law provisions, including the 24-hour waiting period the state requires before a pregnancy can be terminated.
The ruling by Judge Sima Patel, who was appointed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, also prevents the state from disclosing certain information about the procedure to a patient before an abortion and blocks the ban on doctors performing abortions.
Patel believed these requirements were a burden and a violation of the constitutional right to abortion approved by voters in November 2022 and issued a preliminary injunction against their enforcement.
“The state is figuratively putting its finger on the scales and thereby intervening in the patient’s counseling process,” Patel wrote about the information and consent given to patients before an abortion.
Patel did not issue an injunction on other parts of the contested law, but maintained provisions requiring oral counseling against coercion and the provision of resources to victims of domestic violence.
These provisions, Patel wrote, appear to have “less impact on patient decision-making than those above because they are not tied to the mandatory 24-hour waiting period and patients can receive the consultation without delaying treatment.”
Whitmer celebrated the decision on Tuesday, arguing that the 24-hour waiting period for an abortion has “no scientific basis.”
“It is a political blockade designed to shame and inconvenience women. They are often forced to pay more for the care they need or are denied that care altogether,” Whitmer said.
The case, brought by abortion providers and a student group, represents the first real test of the reach of a voter-approved proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
Patel’s decision comes after a heated campaign debate ahead of the 2022 vote on Proposal 3, known as the Reproductive Freedom for All proposal, over whether the constitutional amendment would override existing state abortion regulations. Opponents argued that it would, while supporters of Proposal 3 accused their opponents of fearmongering.
In some cases, laws that contradicted the new constitutional amendment have been repealed by the new democratic majority in parliament in recent months.
But House Democrats failed to find support within their caucus to eliminate the 24-hour waiting period or the informed consent provision, setting the stage for the abortion providers’ Feb. 6 lawsuit, one of the first tests of the law’s durability in light of the new constitutional language.
Restaurants Canada in LCBO strike
Netanyahu seen with another book about the Rebbe
The song that Elton John thought was too high to sing
About The Author
