Michigan judge ends mandatory waiting period for abortions

A Michigan Court of Claims judge has issued a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of a handful of remaining abortion restrictions. The judge ruled that those restrictions most likely violate the state constitution because of an amendment passed by voters.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Democratic leaders of the state legislature could not muster the votes to repeal these provisions, but Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel wrote a 50-page opinion declaring that the laws appeared to violate the Reproductive Rights Amendment passed by voters in 2022.

Patel wrote that the restrictions, which included the 24-hour waiting period and the prohibition on certain licensed professionals from dispensing abortion medications, “exacerbate the burdens on patients seeking abortion care by increasing costs, lengthening wait times, increasing the risk that the patient will have to communicate her decision to others, and potentially preventing a patient from obtaining the type of abortion she desires.”

“The 24-hour waiting period forces patients to undergo unnecessary delays after they are able to consent to a procedure, thereby burdening and impairing the patient’s access to abortion care,” Sima said in her ruling.

The lawsuit was filed by the Northland Family Planning Center and other abortion providers to seek clarity from the courts on the impact of the constitutional amendment.

Doctors say that the ruling means they will no longer have to turn away patients.

“I will be able to care for the children the way I always wanted to,” said Dr. Sarah Wallett, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of Michigan.

“Throughout my career, I have been forced to make my patients wait for an arbitrary period of time dictated by politics.”

Whitmer also welcomed the preliminary ruling in a statement from her office.

“Today’s injunction ensures that women in Michigan have control over their bodies,” she said.

It was not a resounding victory for abortion rights activists. The judge refused to ban the law requiring abortion doctors to screen their patients to make sure they are not being coerced into having an abortion, saying it did not impose an “undue burden.”

But all of these decisions are provisional while the judge considers further arguments before making a final ruling, which can still be appealed in higher courts.