Judge suspends Michigan's dormant 1931 abortion ban

DETROIT >> A judge on Tuesday suspended Michigan's dormant, decades-old ban on abortion, which means the procedure would not be illegal in the state even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its historic Roe v. Wade decision.

The Michigan law, which makes it a crime to assist in an abortion, has been on the books since 1931. But it has had no practical effect since 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide.

The court, however, could throw out that landmark ruling before July, leaving abortion issues for each state to decide.

Court of Claims Judge Elizabeth Gleicher granted a preliminary injunction sought by Planned Parenthood of Michigan, saying the abortion ban likely violates the Michigan Constitution.

“After 50 years of legal abortion in Michigan, there can be no doubt but that the right of personal autonomy and bodily integrity enjoyed by our citizens includes the right of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy,” the judge said.

“From a constitutional standpoint, the right to obtain a safe medical treatment is indistinguishable from the right of a patient to refuse treatment,” Gleicher said.

Gleicher said other Michigan laws regulating abortion will remain in full effect. The injunction will stay in place while the judge makes a final decision in the months ahead or a higher court intervenes.

“No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, abortion access remains protected in Michigan while our full case proceeds to block this antiquated law once and for all,” said Dr. Sarah Wallett of Planned Parenthood, which offers abortion services.

The attorney general's office typically defends against challenges to Michigan laws. But Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said she would not defend or enforce the abortion ban. She, too, believes it is unconstitutional and welcomed the injunction.

John Bursch, an attorney representing Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference, was sharply critical, saying Gleicher had written an “extraordinary, unprecedented decision.” The groups weren't formal parties in the case but were allowed to file opposing briefs.