Judge hopes to rule on injunction against abortion law later today

DES MOINES — A Polk County District Court Judge heard arguments Friday from Planned Parenthood North Central States and the Emma Goldman Clinic seeking an injunction to block the fetal heartbeat bill.

The hearing started before the governor signed the bill into law and Planned Parenthood Attorney Peter Im  argued for an injunction against the law, saying it creates an undue burden on women. “The right to abortion is a critical part of the rights of women, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to make choices and determine and have control over their lives and their futures,” he says.

Im says the burden falls on women in many ways. “The act would have devastating consequences for Iowans. There will be Iowans who will be forced to remain pregnant under the act,” Im say, and even an uncomplicated pregnancy is extremely challenging to someone’s physiology and many pregnancies have complications.”

Im asked the judge to rule from the bench following arguments. “Abortion is time sensitive care and even small delays can have substantial and consequential impacts on the lives of patients,” he says.

Assistant Attorney General Daniel Johnston argued for the state, saying Planned Parenthood’s argument  leaves one thing out. “Conspicuously absent from the petitioners balance of the equities argument is any consideration of the unborn life that is lost as a consequence of the abortion procedure,” Johnston says.

Johnston argued the state has an interest in protecting the unborn. “Petitioners would have the court believe that the only hardship here is to their patients. And that’s the only thing that weighs in the balance and there are no countervailing interests on the other side of that scale,” he says. “But the fetal heartbeat bill aims to prevent the destruction of human lives, and the court must take those lives into account in its analysis.”

Johnston says there is harm done by not putting the law in place. “The status quo is precisely the thing that the state believes is harmful. Secondly, the state and by extension, the public interest is irreparably harmed when it is enjoined from enforcing its democratically enacted statutes, which must be presumed constitutional unless the petitioners can meet the very heavy burden of proving otherwise,” he says.

The judge thanked both sides for their arguments, but said he could “not think of anything that would be more insulting,” than to rule from the bench on “such a serious issue.” He says he will do his best to issue a ruling later today.