Court strikes down Michigan's 24-hour waiting period for abortions
Michigan's mandatory 24-hour waiting period for receiving abortions has been struck down after a Michigan Court of Claims judge determined Tuesday that the rule was unconstitutional.
Michigan voters enshrined the right to an abortion and 'reproductive freedom for all' into the state constitution in the November 2022 election through a ballot measure. In February 2024, abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging several of Michigan's provisions around abortion access, asserting that they work against Michiganders' new constitutional rights.
In addition to the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel struck down requirements surrounding mandatory counseling that required abortion providers to provide an image of a fetus to patients receiving abortions. Another stricken rule had barred nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from performing abortions
However, Patel upheld a rule that requires abortion providers to screen for signs of coercion, saying the rule does not violate the constitutional right to reproductive health care.
Michigan voters OK abortion, voting rights and term limits proposals
'The interest to be protected in this case is the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. The Court has deemed the majority of the provisions in the challenged laws to unconstitutionally burden and infringe upon that right,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday.
Striking down the 24-hour waiting period has been a top priority for abortion access advocates, as Planned Parenthood of Michigan reported in 2023, when lawmakers were considering a repeal, that the rule causes around 150 patients to cancel their appointments each month due to difficulty scheduling with work, transportation or other reasons.
Plaintiffs arguing for the repeal in the case argued that the waiting period does nothing to promote patient health or protect against coercion into getting an abortion. Instead, proponents for the repeal argued that the waiting period works to ensure it becomes more difficult, logistically and medically, to receive quality abortion care earlier in a pregnancy.
'…the Court finds that the mandatory 24-hour waiting period burdens and infringes upon patients' rights to reproductive freedom,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday. 'The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure.'
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, has long supported eliminating the state's waiting period placed on abortions, saying in a statement Tuesday that the court's decision recognizes the struck down provisions as burdensome and obstructive to abortion care.
'This ruling affirms what Michiganders made clear when they voted to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in our state constitution: that deeply personal medical decisions belong to individuals and their providers,' Nessel said. 'I will continue fighting to defend reproductive freedoms and protect bodily autonomy for Michigan residents.'
Meanwhile, Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said in a statement that the court's decision endangers womens' ability to make informed and safe medical decisions for themselves.
'Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,' Roseboom said in a statement. 'There is no question that women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic in Michigan today than they were even a few years ago.'
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who championed the effort to remove the barriers, said the ruling 'reaffirms that Michigan is a state where you can make your own decisions about your own body with a trusted health care provider, without political interference.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Maine Supreme Judicial Court upholds language of voter ID referendum
Jul. 11—The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on Friday that the language of an upcoming statewide referendum question on whether to require photo identification in order to vote does not need to change. A group campaigning in support of the referendum sued the Maine secretary of state this spring, arguing that the wording the office released in May is too confusing to understand and that it could mislead voters. The lawsuit also argued it was not written "in a clear, concise and direct manner." The ballot question reads: "Do you want to change Maine election laws to eliminate two days of absentee voting, prohibit requests for absentee ballots by phone or family members, end ongoing absentee voter status for seniors and people with disabilities, ban prepaid postage on absentee ballot return envelopes, limit the number of drop boxes, require voters to show certain photo ID before voting, and make other changes to our elections?" The referendum qualified for the November ballot in February. A Superior Court justice ruled last month that the wording did not need to change, and Maine's top court backed the ruling on Friday, stating "a ballot question is fatally misleading only if a voter would be led to vote contrary to the voter's intent." "Here, although the question is longer than most have been in the past, that is because it lists the salient features of the legislation in short, easily understood phrases," the recent ruling states. "The wording may be complex but it is not complicated." Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and other opponents of the referendum have criticized advocates for promoting the measure only as a voter ID mandate when it would also make it harder to vote absentee and make other changes to election laws that officials say would be difficult and expensive to implement. Supporters of the referendum, Voter ID for ME, claimed in a statement in May that the referendum wording misrepresents their proposal, saying it "buries the core intent" and that "it fails to meet the constitutional and statutory standards of clarity, accuracy and impartiality." "Because we conclude that the secretary's question is 'understandable to a reasonable voter reading the question for the first time and will not mislead a reasonable voter who understands the proposed legislation into voting contrary to that voter's wishes,' we affirm the judgment of the Superior court," the decision concludes. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The Trump administration's non-denial denials on Emil Bove
Amid all the Trump administration's efforts to politicize the justice system, few loom larger right now than the nomination of top Justice Department official Emil Bove to a prestigious appeals-court judgeship. Bove, a former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, has been central to a number of high-profile controversies in the early months of the president's second term. But the most significant one right now is a whistleblower's allegation that Bove suggested that the Justice Department might simply ignore court orders. Former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni has said Bove suggested at a March meeting that the department might need to tell the courts 'f**k you.' That a soon-to-be appellate judge would say such a thing would obviously be problematic; Democrats have suggested Trump is trying to install a political 'henchman' in a powerful judgeship. We might never know what happened. But what's also clear is that the administration is offering some seemingly very carefully worded denials. You could even call them non-denial denials. Often, they don't directly deny what Reuveni claimed. At other points, Bove has simply said he didn't recall certain things and declined to provide more detail. It's all worth a parse. The latest news Thursday was that the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee released contemporary messages, emails and documents produced by Reuveni that lend credence to his claims. They show DOJ officials repeatedly citing the concept of telling the courts 'f**k you' around the period in question. They don't prove Bove said what Reuveni claims, but they do suggest government lawyers were talking about that precise phrase after the meeting in question. ('Guess we are going to say f**k you to the court,' one text message says. 'This doesn't end with anything but a nationwide injunction,' another text says, 'and a decision point on f**k you.') The top two officials at DOJ soon posted on social media their responses to the new disclosures. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Reuveni was 'asserting false claims.' She added that 'no one was ever asked to defy a court order.' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche added, 'No one was ever asked to defy a court order — because there was no court order to defy.' But the thing is: Reuveni never said anyone was asked to defy a court order. He merely said that Bove floated the idea. 'Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'f**k you' and ignore any such court order,' Reuveni stated in his whistleblower complaint. Blanche has also vouched for Bove in another way: by citing his own presence at the March 14 meeting in question – the one where Reuveni alleges Bove made the remark. 'I was at the meeting described in the article, and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed,' Blanche said last month. But a fast-emerging question is whether Blanche was actually at the entire meeting. Reuveni said in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday that, in fact, Blanche was not. He said Blanche entered the conference room briefly and spoke privately with Bove, but then left and did not participate in the fuller meeting. Reuveni said Bove's remark came after Blanche left. Bove has also talked around this issue, according to written responses to Senate Judiciary Committee members obtained by CNN. In questions for the record posed to Bove after last month's confirmation hearing, Bove was asked if Blanche was at the meeting. 'Mr. Blanche has stated publicly that he was at the meeting,' Bove said, merely referring to Blanche's public comments. Then Bove was asked whether Blanche was 'present for the entire meeting.' Bove declined to answer. He said he didn't want to get into 'non-public specifics about particular topics' and says it would be 'inappropriate' to comment further, since Reuveni's complaint is involved in ongoing litigation. Which brings us to Bove's own answers. While his responses at last month's confirmation hearing seemed to deny Reuveni's claims, it's not so simple. For one, Bove – like Bondi and Blanche – has seemed more willing to deny telling people to actually defy court orders, rather than to actually deny what Reuveni alleged – that he merely suggested it. 'I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,' Bove said early in the hearing. 'I will reiterate, I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate court orders,' he said shortly thereafter. But when Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California asked more specifically about Reuveni's allegation – whether Bove suggested such a thing – Bove didn't so firmly deny it. He instead said he didn't recall saying that. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. When asked if he suggested telling the courts 'f**k you in any manner,' Bove responded, 'I don't recall.' Pressed in the same exchange, Bove said, 'I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.' Precisely what that means isn't totally clear. It would seem possible to suggest ignoring court orders without suggesting there would be a need to do so. Indeed, top DOJ officials have repeatedly cited how there was no actual court order at the time, as if that made the entire controversy moot. And Bove bookended this comment by saying twice that he didn't recall making such a suggestion. Right now, it's clear as mud. The question before Senate Republicans is if they care to find out more and really drill down on this – say, by getting sworn statements from others present at the meeting, and/or the government lawyers who cited the 'f**k you' concept in the texts Reuveni produced. But for now, this issue hasn't been put to bed. And it hasn't really been firmly denied either.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
House Democrat: ‘Kash Patel is an extraordinarily unqualified sycophant'
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) slammed FBI Director Kash Patel on CNN Friday over reports that the bureau has stepped up the use of polygraph tests to screen employees for loyalty. 'This is a really dangerous precedent, right? I understand if you're talking about a political appointee, but these are just public servants who put their lives at risk,' Quigley said. 'Their own personal opinions about how they feel about the FBI director, those are theirs. We can't have this purity test.' The New York Times reported Thursday that the FBI has 'significantly' increased its use of the lie-detector test. Senior officials have been asked whether they have said anything negative about Patel, while polygraphs have also been used in probes to find leakers, the Times reported. 'I don't need a lie-detector test to tell the American people that Kash Patel is an extraordinarily unqualified sycophant who will do what the president of the United States says, even if it violates the Constitution,' Quigley said. 'That scares me. And this is just additional evidence of the fact that his primary concern is defending the president.' Quigley was one of more than 30 House Democrats who signed a letter in February opposing Patel's nomination to the FBI's top job. Patel is a longtime President Trump loyalist who served in various roles in his first administration, including on the National Security Council. He did not have any previous FBI experience prior to leading the agency. He has faced criticism from another flank this week — diehard MAGA influencers — after the FBI and the Department of Justice released a report seeking to settle outstanding questions about disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Far-right media figures have focused much of their ire on Attorney General Pam Bondi, who previously said she was reviewing an 'Epstein client list,' before saying no such thing existed in the new memo. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
