A legal challenge to a “giant step backward” for Iowa women ended this week.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the Iowa City-based Emma Goldman Clinic, and Dr. Sarah Traxler, the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood North Central States, on August 15 asked a Polk County District Court to dismiss their lawsuit challenging Iowa’s near-total abortion ban.
The state has been able to enforce the ban (House File 732) since July 29, making most abortions illegal after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected. That often happens around six weeks after the last menstrual period. The Iowa Supreme Court ruling that allowed the 2023 law to go into effect made it almost impossible for plaintiffs to show the statute is unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood North Central States president and CEO Ruth Richardson said a written statement, “Planned Parenthood is committed to doing everything we can to protect abortion access in Iowa. After politicians passed a near-total abortion ban against the will of Iowans, we worked with Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the ACLU of Iowa to seize every opportunity in the courts to protect and provide care for as long as possible. Every day that we fought in this case meant more patients had access to the care they needed—and we’re proud of that.”
Iowa is among the last states governed by a Republican trifecta to implement severe restrictions on abortion.
Richardson went on to explain, “Iowa’s abortion ban has already caused chaos and devastation, yet the heartbreaking reality is that continuing this case at this moment would not improve or expand access to care.”
The Iowa Supreme Court majority determined that plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in showing the law violates due process rights by banning abortions before most people are aware they are pregnant. Although the District Court could have heard arguments on the plaintiffs’ other two constitutional claims—grounded in the equal protection and inalienable rights clauses of the Iowa Constitution—the Supreme Court stacked the deck in favor of the state.
The majority held abortion regulations are subject to “rational basis” review, meaning the government would only need to demonstrate the law “is rationally related to a legitimate state interest” (in this case “protecting unborn life”). The abortion providers cited research and affidavits that showed forcing people to continue pregnancies would increase the risk of many adverse impacts: mental health crises, physical health complications, intimate partner violence or homicide, financial hardship or job loss.
However, under the rational basis standard, the court would not balance the state’s interests in banning abortions against life-ruining consequences for Iowans denied access to the procedure. Only the state’s goals would carry any weight.
As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, plaintiffs could have asserted in court that the law mandates care not consistent with standard medical practices, and its “largely unusable” exceptions lack any rational basis. For instance, a young child raped by a relative might be able to terminate the pregnancy under the incest exception, but if raped by a neighbor, the same child would be forced to carry to term. Such arguments could not invalidate the law in its entirety, though. They could even lead to a more restrictive abortion ban, if a court struck some of its exceptions.
Richardson said her organization remains “focused on providing abortion care to Iowans within the new restrictions, and helping those who are now forced to travel across state lines access the care and resources they need to have control over their bodies, lives, and futures.”
Planned Parenthood North Central States employs patient navigators to assist those living in abortion ban states. The Chicago Abortion Fund and Iowa Abortion Access Fund have also partnered to help Iowans obtain abortions out of state.