Iowa Supreme Court splits 3–3, won’t revive abortion law.

The Iowa Supreme Court Rejects Six-Week Abortion Ban

In a highly anticipated decision, the Iowa Supreme Court, in a 3–3 ruling, has declined to reinstate a controversial six-week ban on abortions. This ban, which was supported by the state’s governor, aimed to prohibit abortions once cardiac activity could be detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy.

Previously, in 2019, a district court nullified the state’s initial six-week ban, deeming it unconstitutional based on both state and federal law. The case resurfaced after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, thereby removing federal protection for the procedure.

Had the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of the ban, the state would have joined others, including Texas, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, North Dakota, Louisiana, and Kentucky, in implementing similar “heartbeat” measures. However, the 3–3 ruling ensures that abortions will remain legal in Iowa for up to 20 weeks of pregnancy.

It’s worth noting that South Carolina and Ohio have also passed similar abortion bans, but they are currently facing legal challenges.

The Iowa law does include exceptions for medical emergencies, such as threats to the mother’s life, cases of rape or incest, and fetal abnormalities.

Justices Debate

Justice Thomas Waterman, writing on behalf of the three justices who denied the request to reinstate the ban, argued that implementing the measure would bypass the state legislature and alter the standard for reviewing laws. He stated, “In our view, it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it in effect.”

On the other side, Justice Christopher McDonald contended that it was unfair to continue preventing the state from enforcing a law that is now presumed to be constitutional. He emphasized that when a statute previously deemed unconstitutional is overruled, it becomes operative without requiring reenactment.

Governor’s Response

Following the court’s decision, Governor Kim Reynolds expressed disappointment and criticized the court for failing to exercise its authority. She assured the public that the “fight is not over” and stated that she would explore her options without providing further details.