Abortion-right guarantee rejected by Iowa justices
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for lawmakers to severely limit or ban abortion in the state, reversing a decision by the court just four years ago that guaranteed the right to abortion under the Iowa Constitution.
The court, now composed almost entirely of Republican appointees, concluded that a less conservative court wrongly decided abortion is among the fundamental privacy rights guaranteed by the Iowa Constitution and federal law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade, Iowa lawmakers could ban abortion without completing the lengthy process of amending the state constitution.
The Iowa decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by abortion providers who challenged a 2020 law that required a 24-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion.
A judge who struck down the law cited the state high court’s 2018 ruling. The judge also concluded that the law violated rules prohibiting passage of bills with more than one subject.
The state Supreme Court action means those seeking an abortion in Iowa must abide by the 24-hour waiting period which means returning to the clinic for a second time, an obstacle that opponents said could place abortion out of reach for some.
The court returned the legal battle over the 24-hour wait to district court for further proceedings.
In its 2018 ruling, decided by a 5-2 vote, the court said “autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.”
The opinion released Friday and written by Justice Edward Mansfield said the court isn’t obligated to abide by precedent, especially in cases evaluating constitutional rights or in cases decided recently.
Gov. Kim Reynolds said the ruling is a “significant victory in our fight to protect the unborn.” She and legislative leaders have not said whether they will call a special session this summer.
Justice Brent Appel, the only Democratic appointee to the court, dissented, saying “the right to reproductive autonomy should not be eviscerated by narrow textualism.”