Case: Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds

This is a case about an abortion ban enacted in a special session of the Iowa legislature on July 11, 2023.

Previously, on May 4, 2018, Governor Reynolds signed into law a bill that would ban abortion in Iowa after a fetal heartbeat was detected, which could be as early as approximately six weeks after pregnancy. Before that, abortions were legal until twenty weeks. A district court judge declared the law to be in violation of Iowa's State Constitution because it posed an undue burden on the right to abortion and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement in January 2019. After various changes to state and federal law, the state sought to dissolve the 2019 permanent injunction; the district court denied the motion and the Iowa Supreme Court deadlocked.  

The law at issue in this case was also a fetal heartbeat ban, once again prohibiting abortions after six weeks, enacted in special session shortly after the Iowa Supreme Court's decision. On July 12, 2023, the Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and its Medical Director, as well as the Emma Goldman Clinic (a non-profit that provides reproductive health care through all stages of life), filed this lawsuit and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. The plaintiffs sued the Governor of Iowa, the State of Iowa and the Iowa Board of Medicine, alleging violations of the Iowa State Constitution. Represented by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. They claimed that the law violated the Iowa Constitution’s protections for due process, equal protection, and the inalienable rights of persons. The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Seidlin. 

The court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunctive relief on July 17, 2023, following a hearing, and granted the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction, enjoining the defendants from enforcing the abortion ban. The court held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the law imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion. The court reasoned that this was likely because the new law was virtually identical to the previous abortion ban, which had been found to pose an undue burden. The court also agreed with the plaintiffs that the enforcement of the law would cause irreparable harm in the form of the loss of opportunities for individual patients seeking abortion services from Iowa providers. Finally, the court found that the balance of harms weighed in the plaintiffs’ favor. The temporary injunction was to remain in place, pending a final decision on the merits of the case. 2023 WL 4624963. 

Later that month, on July 21, Iowa appealed the injunction to the state Supreme Court. On June 28, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision vacating the injunction and holding that the Iowa Constitution does not protect abortion as a fundamental right. The court based its decision on a 2022 case, also called Planned Parenthood of the Heartlands v. Reynolds (975 N.W.2d 710), where the court had held that the Iowa Constitution's text did not contain any fundamental protection for abortion rights and the state's history of abortion bans meant that such a right lacked "deep roots." The lack of a fundamental right to abortion meant that under substantive due process doctrine, Iowa's abortion ban would be upheld as long as it had a "rational basis," which is a lower standard than the undue burden test applied by the lower court. The Iowa Supreme Court held that Iowa had various legitimate interests for the law, including "preservation of prenatal life" and "protection of maternal health and safety," and that the law was constitutional because it was rationally related to those interests. Three justices dissented, arguing that the Iowa Constitution does protect abortion as a fundamental right and that the court should recognize societal evolution on issues of women's rights and reproductive freedom.

The Iowa Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court. On July 22, 2024, the trial court (Judge Jeffrey Farrell) dissolved the injunction. On August 15, 2024, plaintiff's filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and, on August 19, the trial court entered the notice. The case is now closed.