Iowa lawmakers were given Friday a clear way to severely limit or even ban abortion in the state after the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a decision made four years ago that guaranteed the right to the procedure under the Iowa Constitution.
Composed almost entirely of Republican appointees at the moment, the court concluded that the decision to make abortion a fundamental privacy right guaranteed by the Iowa Constitution and federal law, made by a less conservative court, was wrong.
The decision’s reversal after just four years reflects the dramatic change in the court’s makeup since 2017 after GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds has named four justices so now six of the seven judges of the court have been appointed by Republican governors.
Republicans in the Legislature as well as Reynolds, which is an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, have repeatedly stressed their hopes that the court would overturn the 2018 ruling.
That is also the main reason why the governor was given by GOP lawmakers larger control over the panel that chooses which lawyers and judges are nominated for court positions
Decided by a 5-2 vote, the 2018 ruling said that autonomy and dominion over one’s body go to the very heart of what it means to be free.
The latest decision by the Iowa Supreme Court is stemming from the legal challenge to a 2020 law that required a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could get an abortion filed by abortion providers.
Citing the state high court’s 2018 ruling, the judge who struck down the law, concluding that it violates rules prohibiting the passage of bills with more than one subject, so the Iowa Supreme Court returned the waiting period case to the district court.
While national legislatures are continuously trying to push their own laws regarding the right to an abortion, the whole nation awaits the US Supreme Court’s decision which is expected to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
If that happens, lawmakers could ban abortion in Iowa without completing the lengthy process of amending its constitution.
Be the first to comment