Judge strikes down abortion waiting period in Michigan
A Michigan judge on Tuesday overturned a law requiring a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be administered in the state.
Judge Sima Patel ruled that the law conflicted with an amendment Michigan voters passed in 2022 enshrining abortion rights into the state's Constitution.
The waiting period existed in Michigan for years, but Patel temporarily blocked it last year, arguing that it 'exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care,' according to The Associated Press.
Michigan abortion providers sued last year to overturn the 24-hour waiting period for patients and to scrap the informed consent law, as well as a law that barred advanced practice clinicians from providing abortions.
Patel, a Court of Claims judge, also reversed a part of the law that required abortion providers to give patients fetal development charts and information on alternatives to abortions, arguing that it also violates the Reproductive Freedom for All constitutional amendment.
She also paused a section of the law that excluded nurses, nurse midwives and physician assistants from providing abortion care.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said she was 'overjoyed' by the judge's decision to overturn the waiting period and informed consent requirements.
'For years, Michiganders have faced obstacles when seeking reproductive care. From a 24-hour waiting period before accessing abortion to a ban on advanced practice clinicians providing care, these rules have put politicians between a woman and her doctor,' Whitmer wrote in a post on social platform X.
'I'm overjoyed to say that the Michigan Court of Claims has seen these restrictive provisions for what they are: an unconstitutional overreach that infringes on our constitutional right to make our own reproductive health decisions,' she added.
Meanwhile, anti-abortion groups in the state admonished Patel for her ruling, arguing that it poses an 'immediate threat' to women's health across the state.
'Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,' Amber Roseboom, president of the Right to Life of Michigan, wrote 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,' the group added.
The risk of complications from an abortion remains extremely low. Research shows that about 2 percent of abortions involve some type of complication.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCLA Asks Sixth Circuit to Revive Suit Over Dept. of Education's Illegal Student Loan Payment Pause
Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. U.S. Department of Education; Sec'y of Education Linda McMahon, in her official capacity; and James Bergeron, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, in his official capacity Washington, DC, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an opening brief today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a district court's dismissal, for lack of standing, of our Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Dept. of Education lawsuit against the Department's unlawfully forgiving 35 months of interest on student loans. Without any statutory authority, the Department extended Congress's original six-month interest forgiveness and payment suspension for nearly three more years, cancelling debt in violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause at a cost of at least $175 billion to taxpayers, harming the Mackinac Center in the process. This scheme injures public-service employers like Mackinac by reducing the financial incentives for (potential) employees to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The Sixth Circuit should decide Mackinac does have standing and require the district court to hear the case on the merits against the Department's unlawful policy. Established by Congress, the PSLF program allows employees to have their student-loan debt forgiven after ten years of work with one or more public-service employers. When the Department excused debtors from paying interest on their loans, it decreased—dollar for dollar—the wage subsidy the program promised to public-service employers like the Mackinac Center, making it more expensive for them to keep compensating their PSLF employees at the same level. The economic harm caused by the Department's unlawfully excusing student-loan debtors from honoring their obligations is enough, on its own, to require the government to answer for its actions in court. But in addition to that, the Department's lawless decisions also skewed the labor market in a way that frustrates the congressionally-designed PSLF program, increases the cost for the Mackinac Center to compete for college-educated employees, and costs taxpayers billions. The Department caused these injuries, and now the Court of Appeals should make sure it must answer for them. NCLA released the following statements: 'Governmental agencies cannot blithely ignore the law without expecting to answer for the harm their unlawful actions cause organizations like the Mackinac Center. We trust the Court of Appeals will make that clear to the Department of Education.'— Daniel Kelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'The Department of Education under Secretary McMahon should settle this case. What possible reason does it have to keep defending the lawless regime instituted by former Secretary Miguel Cardona and Richard Cordray to forgive student-loan debt—or in this case interest on that debt—without authority from Congress?'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the case page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
17 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Detained Columbia graduate claims ‘irreparable harm' to career and family as he pleads for release
NEW YORK — A Columbia graduate facing deportation over his pro-Palestinian activism on campus has outlined the 'irreparable harm' caused by his continued detention as a federal judge weighs his release. Mahmoud Khalil said in court filings unsealed Thursday that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he's faced in his months detained in Louisiana relate to missing out on the birth of his first child in April. 'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' the 30-year-old legal U.S. resident wrote. 'When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.' He also cited potentially 'career-ending' harms from the ordeal, noting that Oxfam International has already rescinded a job offer to serve as a policy adviser. Even his mother's visa to come to the U.S. to help care for his infant son is also now under federal review, Khalil said. 'As someone who fled prosecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,' he wrote. 'Why should protesting this Israel government's indiscriminate killing of thousands of innocent Palestinians result in the erosion of my constitutional rights?' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded that Khalil should simply self-deport, taking advantage of the administration's offer of $1,000 and a free flight to those in the country illegally that use its CBP Home app. Khalil obtained a green card, but the Trump administration says it is revoking it. Khalil's 13-page statement was among a number of legal declarations his lawyers filed highlighting the wide-ranging negative impacts of his arrest. Dr. Noor Abdalla, his U.S. citizen wife, described the challenges of not having her husband to help navigate their son's birth and the first weeks of his young life. Students and professors at Columbia wrote about the chilling effect Khalil's arrest has had on campus life, with people afraid to attend protests or participate in groups that can be viewed as critical of the Trump administration. Last week, a federal judge in New Jersey said the Trump administration's effort to deport Khalil likely violates the Constitution. Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote the government's primary justification for removing Khalil — that his beliefs may pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy — could open the door to vague and arbitrary enforcement. Khalil was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza. Marcelo writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Team Trump's new ‘patriotism' tests for federal job-seekers shouldn't fly under the radar
About a month after Election Day 2024, it became clear that Donald Trump's team had embraced a problematic approach to new employee screenings. The New York Times, for example, reportedly spoke to several people involved in the hiring process for high-ranking positions who were asked whether they believed the 2020 election was stolen. The Wall Street Journal reported soon after that the Republican operation was imposing 'loyalty tests' on job applicants, even asking candidates about their views on NATO and tariffs for jobs that had nothing to do with international affairs or economic policymaking. Two weeks after Inauguration Day, The Washington Post reported on similar tests being applied to candidates for top national security positions, including questions about whether the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was secretly 'an inside job.' Against this backdrop Politico reported this week: As President Donald Trump moves to slash the size of the federal workforce, his administration unveiled a plan to ensure that any new hires are 'patriotic Americans' who vow to advance the president's policy priorities. The White House and the agency that serves as the government's human resources arm Thursday released directives for departments to use when recruiting employees in a memo that represents a dramatic shift in federal hiring procedures. At first blush, a story like this might seem dry and bureaucratic. The Office of Personnel Management last week issued a memo outlining the administration's detailed 'merit hiring plan,' and I can appreciate why this could come across as boring. It's not. Under the new policy, everyone seeking a job at the GS-5 pay-grade or above — a group that would include everyone from firefighters to food inspectors to air traffic controllers — will have to submit four essays as part of the application process. The essays are supposed to provide answers to specific questions: 'How has your commitment to the Constitution and the founding principles of the United States inspired you to pursue this role within the Federal government? Provide a concrete example from professional, academic, or personal experience.' 'In this role, how would you use your skills and experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness? Provide specific examples where you improved processes, reduced costs, or improved outcomes.' 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' 'How has a strong work ethic contributed to your professional, academic or personal achievements? Provide one or two specific examples, and explain how those qualities would enable you to serve effectively in this position.' Imagine people who are applying to be rangers at a national park being asked to write essays about how they'd 'advance' Trump's executive orders. Then imagine the president himself trying to write an essay about his 'commitment to the Constitution' — a document he's talked about 'terminating' in response to one of his election conspiracy theories. The goal, according to the memo, is to recruit 'patriotic Americans' with a 'commitment to American ideals,' which also sets a bar that the incumbent president would likely struggle to clear. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, and Catherine Fisk, a professor of labor law at the same school, explained, 'The government can and should ensure that federal employees, from administrative assistants to air traffic controllers, have the skills and aptitude to do their jobs. But their views on the administration's policy priorities are irrelevant, as is their patriotism — however that is defined. Allowing someone in the government to screen applicants for patriotism is reminiscent of the loyalty oaths of the McCarthy era, which were arbitrarily applied to unfairly deny employment to many.' Chemerinsky and Fisk added, 'No modern presidential administration has undertaken such an effort to staff the entire government with political loyalists. It is plainly inconsistent with good government, with federal law and with the Constitution.' There was a time in the recent past that 'patriotism tests' for federal employees would've generated a significant controversy and an intense backlash. But in 2025, against a backdrop of countless other White House outrages, the OPM memo doesn't appear to have made much of a splash. This article was originally published on
