A Michigan judge has struck down parts of the state’s remaining laws that restrict abortion access, including finding the 24-hour mandatory waiting period and informed consent laws unconstitutional after voters passed an abortion access measure in 2022.
Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel ruled May 13 that Proposal 3 of 2022, which voters passed to create the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the state’s constitution, invalidates laws that could restrict abortion access.
Abortion providers in Michigan had sued the state last year over its mandatory 24-hour waiting period for patients before receiving an abortion, the informed consent law that required providers to ensure patients review certain materials described as inaccurate by abortion proponents, and a law prohibiting advanced practice clinicians (APCs) from providing abortion care. APCs can include nurse practitioners and other medical assistants, and plaintiffs in the lawsuit noted that APCs are permitted to provide abortions in other states.
The laws had already been blocked from being enforced since June, after Patel previously issued a preliminary injunction against them in the case.
However, in her May 13 ruling, Patel did not strike down all the abortion laws providers sought to have blocked. She ruled a statute requiring providers to ensure that patients are not coerced into getting an abortion can remain in place.
“The Court finds that, with limited exceptions, the challenged laws violate the (amendment),” Patel wrote in her 83-page opinion. “Most of the statutory requirements burden or infringe upon individuals’ reproductive freedom, are not based on a compelling state interest to protect the health of individuals seeking abortion care, are not consistent with the accepted standard of care and evidence-based medicine, and infringe on autonomous decision-making.”
Patel’s ruling is a win for abortion advocates in Michigan, who said the laws previously created barriers to reproductive care for patients.
The informed consent law required patients to fill out and submit a confirmation form affirming they’ve reviewed specific information. Before Patel issued a preliminary injunction against the informed consent law, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) stated on its website it “does not necessarily endorse all the information it is required to make available under this statute,” the Free Press reported last year.
Abortion providers said the information contained inaccuracies — in Patel’s ruling, she wrote abortion providers would have to show pictures comparing the size of gestational fetuses compared to types of fruit, according to testimony. Providers also argued the informed consent law didn’t allow them to tailor their care for each specific patient. The web page no longer exists on MDHHS’ website.
Patel wrote the 24-hour mandatory 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.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel commended the ruling. While Nessel, a staunch proponent of abortion access, and other state officials listed in the lawsuit didn’t oppose an injunction against the abortion laws, lawyers from the Attorney General’s Office represented the state so an adversarial defense could be provided.
“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.
The lawsuit was filed last year by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers, a group of abortion providers in metro Detroit. Patel heard arguments in the case in February.
In 2023, Democrats in the Michigan House of Representatives had introduced legislation to repeal the waiting period and informed consent laws, but didn’t have the votes to pass it alongside a series of other abortion access measures that were ultimately signed into law. Republicans have since gained control of the House.
Right to Life of Michigan, a group that opposes abortion rights, derided the ruling.
“This court ruling is bad news for women,” Genevieve Marnon, Right to Life of Michigan’s legislative director, said in a statement. “At a time when abortion complications are on the rise, eliminating standardized informed consent about procedures, potential risks, and alternatives is a serious disservice to women.”
According to state medical data, there were 5.1 total immediate medical complications per 10,000 abortions performed in Michigan in 2023. From 2020 to 2022, the rate was 1.7 total immediate medical complications per 10,000 abortions performed in the state. Providers say abortion care remains safe, MLive reported in December.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer also commended the ruling, saying in a May 13 statement: “Today’s ruling means that patients and doctors are no longer subject to even more of these outdated restrictions on abortion, including the forced waiting period and a ban on advanced practice clinicians from performing abortions.”
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge rules some remaining abortion restrictions in Michigan are unconstitutional
Reporting by Arpan Lobo, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
