DETROIT — The constitutionality of certain Michigan abortion regulations was debated before a state judge for nearly two hours Tuesday in a case that will pose the first real test of the reach of a voter-approved proposal that enshrined abortion rights into the state constitution.

The case, filed by abortion providers and a student group, seeks a court ruling that finds the new abortion right, approved by voters in 2022, supersedes state laws requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, mandating certain information on the procedure and other options be given to a patient ahead of an abortion, and prohibiting advance practice clinicians from performing abortions.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel on Tuesday weighed arguments for and against a temporary halt to enforcement of the regulations while the case is pending. She is expected to rule on the issue in the coming months.

The litigation comes after a heated campaign debate ahead of the 2022 vote on Proposal 3, known as the Reproductive Freedom for All proposal, over whether the constitutional amendment would nullify existing state regulations on abortion. Opponents argued it would, while proponents of Proposal 3 accused their foes of fear mongering.

About a year and half later, lawyers for abortion providers challenging the regulations argued the constitutional amendment does trump existing state regulations.

The rules at issue were meant to deter people from having an abortion or limit their access to the procedure, even at the risk of harming their health and bodily autonomy in violation of the constitutional right to an abortion, said Rabia Muqaddam, an attorney arguing on behalf of plaintiff Northland Family Planning Center in Southfield.

Informed consent is inherently an individualized process, she argued, not one that can be established through a one-size-fits-all instructional pamphlet formulated by the state. And the ban on advanced practice clinicians disregards separate public health code and standards of care that govern which individuals can perform abortions, Muqaddam added.

"We have a law that does not advance patient health, significantly harms people and as a result cannot stand," Muqaddam said.

But Assistant Attorney General Eric Restuccia argued there is nothing that is harmful about state laws requiring that people are given the information they need to make an informed decision. The regulations at issue ensure the patient is protected and were upheld by past court decisions while Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land, he said. Roe was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022.

"The idea of not providing information to people so they make decisions unaware doesn’t ultimately advance reproductive freedom," Restuccia said. "Freedom ultimately runs to the patient. We want to make sure the patient has the information.”

...continued

©2024 The Detroit News. Visit detroitnews.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.