Latest news with #Proposal3of2022
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Judge rules some remaining abortion restrictions in Michigan are unconstitutional
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 2020-2022, 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@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Judge rules abortion restrictions in Michigan unconstitutional
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trial begins as abortion providers challenge some restrictions in Michigan
Abortion-rights advocates seeking to undo some of Michigan's remaining restrictions on the procedure were in court Thursday, as a trial began over a challenge to a series of existing laws. Plaintiffs argue that some Michigan laws restricting abortion are no longer constitutional after voters approved a ballot proposal in 2022 that enshrined the right to reproductive freedom in the state's constitution. 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. They have already seen one victory in the case — last June, presiding Judge Sima Patel issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing some of the laws challenged in the case, including the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, the "informed consent" law that requires 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. Patel, who was appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2022, wrote that Proposal 3 of 2022's passage most likely rendered the laws unconstitutional because they likely infringe on residents' ability to make decisions about their reproductive health care. Patel did not issue a preliminary injunction against a portion of state law that requires abortion providers to determine whether patients have been coerced to receive an abortion, something also challenged by the plaintiffs. Renee Chelian, executive director of Northland Family Planning Centers, took the stand to start the trial Thursday. She testified that the waiting period and informed consent laws created barriers to abortion access for some patients. She said some patients had previously arranged transportation or child care on the day of their appointment, only to be delayed more than 24 hours because of the mandatory waiting period. In some cases, Chelian said, the delay resulted in an advancement of the gestational period that made some abortion procedures no longer feasible. Chelian also testified the materials abortion centers are required to provide patients weren't completely accurate. The informed consent law also requires 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 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. 'From the time it was written until recently, there was a great deal of inaccuracies,' Chelian said. Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Molly Duane also questioned Chelian about the state law requiring abortion providers to ensure patients are not coerced into having an abortion, the lone law challenged in the lawsuit that Patel did not grant a preliminary injunction against. Chelian testified it was more common for a woman to be coerced into remaining pregnant than to get an abortion. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, along with other state health officials. Nessel supports abortion access in Michigan, but her office is compelled to represent the state in any litigation brought against it. Nessel did not oppose the lawsuit, but lawyers from the Attorney General's Office are representing the state in the trial after a so-called conflict wall was established so an adversarial defense could be provided. Assistant Attorney General Kendell Asbenson led cross-examination for the defense. He asked Chelian if the informed consent laws created "a burden" for patients. "There's no other medical procedure done in this state where the patient is required to look at alternatives to the procedure they're going to have," she replied. Dr. Charisse Loder, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan, also testified Thursday. Trial dates in the case are currently scheduled through next Friday. The case is being heard in Detroit, and being livestreamed online. It is a bench trial, meaning Patel, the overseeing judge, will rule on the case once it reaches its conclusion. 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. Democrats have since lost the state House to Republicans, which makes it unlikely that any legislative action is taken on the abortion restrictions under the current leadership dynamic. Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@ This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Trial underway in challenge to abortion restrictions in Michigan
