Michigan judge issues order against enforcing abortion restrictions

A Michigan Court of Claims judge has entered a provisional order that bars enforcement of a handful of remaining abortion restrictions. The judge ruled the restrictions very likely violate the state constitution under a voter-approved amendment.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Legislature’s Democratic leaders were unable to muster the votes to repeal these provisions, but Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel wrote a 50-page opinion that declared laws including 24-hour waiting periods and a ban on certain licensed professionals dispensing abortion drugs appear to run afoul of the reproductive rights amendment adopted by voters in 2022.

Patel wrote the restrictions, including the 24-hour waiting period, “exacerbate the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that the patient will have to disclose the decision to others, and potentially preventing a patient from having the type of abortion that the patient prefers.”

The judge continued: “The 24-hour waiting period forces needless delay on patients after they are able to consent to a procedure, thus burdening and infringing upon a patient’s access to abortion care.”

The challenge was filed by Northland Family Planning Center and other abortion providers to get some clarity from the courts.

Dr. Sarah Wallett is the chief medical operating officer for Planned Parenthood of Michigan. Even with the amendment, Wallett says she was still forced to turn away patients.

With the injunction now in place, “I will be able to provide care in the way that I wish I had always been able to. In my entire career, I have been forced to make my patients wait an arbitrary amount of time dictated by politicians,” she said.

In a statement released by her office, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also cheered the preliminary ruling.

“Today’s injunction ensures women in Michigan can make their own decisions about their own bodies,” she said.

It was not a total victory for abortion rights advocates. The judge refused to enjoin the law that requires abortion providers to screen patients to ensure they are not being coerced into ending a pregnancy. She said this did not amount to an “undue burden.”

But all these decisions are temporary while the judge considers more arguments before issuing a final ruling that can still be challenged to higher courts.