Michigan’s 24-hour abortion waiting period blocked by Court of Claims • Michigan Advance

Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period before an abortion and a requirement to provide patients with fetal images and adoption information were blocked after a Michigan Court of Claims judge said Tuesday that the laws contradict the state’s constitutional right to abortion, which voters approved in November 2022.

In her opinion, Judge Sima Patel stated that Michigan’s current mandatory 24-hour waiting period for an abortion “exacerbates the burdens on patients seeking abortion care,” unnecessarily increasing the cost of care for patients, increasing the risk that the person seeking to make a private medical decision will have to disclose their decision to have an abortion, and potentially preventing patients from obtaining the abortion method they desire.

“The 24-hour waiting period forces patients into unnecessary delays after they are able to consent to a procedure, thereby burdening and impairing the patient’s access to abortion care. This burdens and impairs the patient’s freedom to make and implement decisions about abortion care,” Patel said in the statement.

Arguments in the lawsuit to overturn abortion restrictions in Michigan

The ruling, which issues a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing the 24-hour waiting period and some pre-abortion counseling requirements, comes after The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in February on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice, calling the laws unconstitutional.

The interim injunction remains in force until it is challenged in the further course of the proceedings.

Rabia Muqaddam, senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights said during the first clashes in the event that the 24-hour waiting period and mandatory pre-abortion counseling impair a person’s right to autonomy and access to reproductive health care.

“The vast and completely uncontroversial medical consensus is that the laws do not serve the health of patients in any way and actually undermine it,” Muqaddam said. “It is also clear from the research that these laws cause significant harm. So they delay abortion care. Abortion care is time-sensitive. The risk increases over time.”

The contested action the mandatory informed consent of the state law, a counseling requirement before an abortion. But the injunction does not block the entire informed consent law, leaving in place requirements for oral counseling against coercion and the provision of up-to-date resources for victims of domestic violence.

However, the requirement to inform patients about the risks of a live birth, to provide images of the fetus, to provide information about prenatal care, to provide information about parenting and adoption, and to offer to show ultrasound images is “a burden and interference with the patient’s right to make and carry out decisions about abortion,” Patel’s statement said.

“This information distracts a patient from the decision to have an abortion by juxtaposing content that is clearly more relevant and appropriate for those seeking to complete a pregnancy. Such information certainly influences the patient’s decision to have an abortion and interferes with the patient’s decision-making process,” Patel writes.

The mandatory nature of the information that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) must prepare and distribute forces patients to absorb information that has nothing to do with their decision to have an abortion, “thus violating the patient’s decision-making process,” she writes.

“The state is metaphorically putting its finger on the scales…The mere fact that DHHS stands between patient and provider has an impact on how a patient makes and carries out decisions about abortion care,” Patel writes. “These effects, contrary to the argument of intervening defendant, are not merely incidental or incidental. The informed consent provisions, taken as a whole, are designed to compel a patient to consider the alternative of not having an abortion. The manner in which the information is presented is not neutral; it is designed to avoid abortion in favor of terminating the pregnancy.”

Reproductive Freedom for All Michigan director Shanay Watson-Whittaker welcomed the decision.

“Mandatory 24-hour waiting periods are an anti-abortion tactic designed to prevent Michiganders from exercising their constitutional right to abortion care,” Watson-Whittaker said in a statement. “We applaud Judge Patel’s decision, which will ensure that people across the state can make their own medical decisions – and that Michigan providers can provide care without unnecessary, baseless obstacles.”

Abortion ruling