Case: Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds

This case challenged Iowa's 24-hour mandatory waiting period for abortions as unconstitutional under the state Constitution. On June 23, 2020, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. (PPH) and Dr. Jill Meadows, PPH's medical director, filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the Governor of Iowa and the Iowa Board of Medicine. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa Foundation and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the petitioners alleged that Amendment H-8314 to House File 594 (HF 594), which required women seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and certain state-mandated information and then wait at least 24 hours before obtaining an abortion, violated the Iowa Constitution's single-subject rule and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Iowa Constitution. The petitioners sought a declaration that Section 2 of HF 594 was unconstitutional, a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining the respondents from enforcing it, and an award of costs. The case was assigned to District Court Judge Mitchell E. Turner of the Sixth Judicial District of Iowa.

The Amendment was passed under highly unusual circumstances. The Iowa Legislature attached the Amendment to an existing, unrelated bill concerning the withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from minor children. The text of the Amendment was released on the evening of Saturday, June 13, 2020, and the Iowa House passed the bill just before 11:00 p.m. that same night, with the Iowa Senate following at approximately 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, June 14, 2020. Governor Reynolds signed the Amendment into law on June 29, 2020, with an effective date of July 1, 2020.

The petitioners argued that the Amendment was virtually identical to a 72-hour mandatory waiting period that the Iowa Supreme Court had already struck down in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 915 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa 2018) (PPH II), in which the Iowa Supreme Court recognized abortion as a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution and applied strict scrutiny to mandatory delay laws. The petitioners contended that, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the respondents were barred from relitigating the constitutionality of mandatory delay requirements already resolved in PPH II. The petitioners further argued that the Amendment's passage violated the Iowa Constitution's single-subject rule because it addressed abortion waiting periods but was attached to a bill concerning withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from minors — an entirely unrelated subject — in a manner that deprived legislators and the public of meaningful notice or debate.

The respondents argued that PPH lacked third-party standing to assert the constitutional rights of its patients, that the single-subject rule must be liberally construed in favor of constitutionality, and that the Amendment was not identical to the law struck down in PPH II and therefore issue preclusion did not apply.

On June 30, 2020, Judge Turner granted the petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief. The court found that PPH and Dr. Meadows had third-party standing to assert their patients' rights because of the close doctor-patient relationships established by Dr. Meadows's affidavits, and the practical barriers that would prevent patients from bringing claims individually, including privacy concerns and the time-sensitive nature of abortion procedures. On the merits, the court found that the petitioners had demonstrated a likelihood of success on both their single-subject rule claim and their due process and equal protection claims. With respect to the single-subject rule, the court found the unusual circumstances of the Amendment's passage — including the speed of its adoption, the lack of debate, and the Speaker of the Iowa House's own concurrence that the Amendment was not germane to the underlying bill — supported a likelihood of success. With respect to the constitutional claims, the court held it was bound by PPH II, under which strict scrutiny applied and the respondents bore the burden of showing that any infringement was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. The court also found that the balance of hardships favored the petitioners, as patients nearing the gestational limit for abortion in Iowa faced potential deprivation of a fundamental right, and that no adequate legal remedy existed. The court required the petitioners to post a $500.00 bond. Respondents were temporarily enjoined from enforcing Section 2 of HF 594 while the action remained pending.

On January 22, 2021, PPH moved for summary judgment based on the single-subject rule and issue preclusion. The State cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the single-subject rule. On June 21, 2021, the district court granted summary judgment to PPH and declared the 24-hour waiting period unconstitutional on both grounds, entering a permanent injunction against enforcement of Section 2 of HF 594.

The State appealed. On June 17, 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a divided opinion reversing the district court on both grounds. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 975 N.W.2d 710 (Iowa 2022) (PPH 2022). On the single-subject rule, the court agreed with the district court that HF 594 violated the Iowa Constitution's single-subject requirement, affirming that the 24-hour abortion waiting period was not germane to the bill's original subject of withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from minors. However, the court reversed on the constitutional merits, holding that the Iowa Constitution is not the source of a fundamental right to abortion requiring strict scrutiny review, thereby overruling PPH II. A plurality of the court declined to decide whether the Casey undue burden standard or rational basis review should govern on remand, noting that the pending U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization might provide guidance. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. Rehearing was denied on July 5, 2022.

Following the Iowa Supreme Court's decision, and in light of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, PPH voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Governor Reynolds. The case was closed in August 2022.