Court strikes down Michigan's 24-hour waiting period for abortions
Michigan's mandatory 24-hour waiting period for receiving abortions has been struck down after a Michigan Court of Claims judge determined Tuesday that the rule was unconstitutional.
Michigan voters enshrined the right to an abortion and 'reproductive freedom for all' into the state constitution in the November 2022 election through a ballot measure. In February 2024, abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging several of Michigan's provisions around abortion access, asserting that they work against Michiganders' new constitutional rights.
In addition to the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel struck down requirements surrounding mandatory counseling that required abortion providers to provide an image of a fetus to patients receiving abortions. Another stricken rule had barred nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from performing abortions
However, Patel upheld a rule that requires abortion providers to screen for signs of coercion, saying the rule does not violate the constitutional right to reproductive health care.
Michigan voters OK abortion, voting rights and term limits proposals
'The interest to be protected in this case is the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. The Court has deemed the majority of the provisions in the challenged laws to unconstitutionally burden and infringe upon that right,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday.
Striking down the 24-hour waiting period has been a top priority for abortion access advocates, as Planned Parenthood of Michigan reported in 2023, when lawmakers were considering a repeal, that the rule causes around 150 patients to cancel their appointments each month due to difficulty scheduling with work, transportation or other reasons.
Plaintiffs arguing for the repeal in the case argued that the waiting period does nothing to promote patient health or protect against coercion into getting an abortion. Instead, proponents for the repeal argued that the waiting period works to ensure it becomes more difficult, logistically and medically, to receive quality abortion care earlier in a pregnancy.
'…the Court finds that the mandatory 24-hour waiting period burdens and infringes upon patients' rights to reproductive freedom,' Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday. 'The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure.'
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, has long supported eliminating the state's waiting period placed on abortions, saying in a statement Tuesday that the court's decision recognizes the struck down provisions as burdensome and obstructive to abortion care.
'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. 'I will continue fighting to defend reproductive freedoms and protect bodily autonomy for Michigan residents.'
Meanwhile, Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said in a statement that the court's decision endangers womens' ability to make informed and safe medical decisions for themselves.
'Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,' Roseboom said in a statement. 'There is no question that women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic in Michigan today than they were even a few years ago.'
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who championed the effort to remove the barriers, said the ruling 'reaffirms that Michigan is a state where you can make your own decisions about your own body with a trusted health care provider, without political interference.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge squashes San Mateo County sheriff's attempt to halt removal hearing
A U.S. District Court judge on Wednesday squashed embattled San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus' latest attempt to stall or shut down her upcoming removal hearing. 'The Court is skeptical that Corpus will ever be able to prevail on her claims that the removal process violates her federal constitutional rights,' District Court Judge Vince Chhabria said. 'But even if there were serious questions going to the merits of her claims, the Court would decline to take the extraordinary step of interfering with an ongoing local government process.' Corpus' public removal hearing is slated for August 18, one of the last steps in a months-long venture to oust the first-term sheriff accused of creating a hostile workplace culture. In March, voters overwhelmingly passed a charter amendment granting county supervisors the authority to remove Corpus. Voters greenlit the removal process months after supervisors in November released a bombshell, independent, 400-plus page report that corroborated several allegations against the sheriff. Supervisors called for her resignation, but Corpus resisted, calling efforts to remove her 'disgusting' and filed in January her own lawsuit against the county, seeking $10 million on grounds that she was discriminated against for being Latinx and a woman. At the center of the allegations is Corpus' allegedly romantic relationship with Victor Aenlle, a real estate agent she hired to consult for her transition team. County officials ended his contract after she told the county executive the two had traveled to Hawaii together, but in January 2023, Corpus rehired him as a full-time contractor making $92 an hour, and soon, she had hired him for a $246,000 full-time position, all without publicizing the job opening, according to the independent report. 'Lies, secrecy, intimidation, retaliation, conflicts of interest, and abuses of authority are the hallmarks of the Corpus administration,' retired judge LaDoris Cordell said late last year in her independent report into allegations made against the sheriff. 'Nothing short of new leadership can save this organization that is in turmoil, and its personnel demoralized.' Before supervisors can strip Corpus of her position, she has the right for a full evidentiary hearing, where each side has up to five days to call witnesses. Corpus' removal hearing is expected to conclude August 29. Retired judge James Emerson will then have 30 days to issue an opinion. Afterward, four out of five supervisors must agree to remove Corpus as sheriff for the county to move forward.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask the all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the US Agency for International Development into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with details from the opinion.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results A $340 Million New York Office Makeover Is Converting Boardrooms to Bedrooms ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
