Attorneys present their case on abortion law before Iowa Supreme Court

DES MOINES — The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday on the fetal heartbeat law that’s been on hold since the the governor signed the bill.

The state’s attorney Eric Wessen argued the state has a rational interest in enacting the law and that’s how it should be viewed. “A majority of this court held and Planned Parenthood 2022 that abortion is not a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny so under its long standing substantive due process jurisprudence this court should apply rational basis,” he says.

Wessen says there are several interests the law considers. “The right of life, the important value of health and well being of mothers, the integrity of medical profession, each of those can be found in Iowa code section 146 E,” he says. Wessen says he believes the district court would have to drop its injunction if the High Court follows his argument. “If this court explains and holds that rational basis is the proper standard of review the state is confident that this law which is duly enacted by the legislature and is entitled to the presumption of constitutionality will survive that review,” he says.

Peter Im represented Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Iowa which are seeking to block the law. He says a rational interest interpretation should not be used. “PPH 2022 which is the controlling precedent clearly stated that undue burden quote remains the governing standard unquote. The district court got it right by applying that standard and certainly did not abuse its discretion by committing legal error,” Im says.

He says the law block the rights of women. “Iowans’ ability to make decisions, private and personal medical decisions, to exercise bodily autonomy and to decide what when and whether to have children,” Im says. Justices Christopher McDonald and Susan Christensen asked Im about his argument that women were not properly represented when abortion was banned after Iowa became a state. They asked why a law should be blocked that was passed by a legislature that now includes duly-elected women. “The level of deference to the legislature is certainly most important I think in issues of policy. But when it comes to individual rights, there is no political question doctrine. There is no doctrine that says that this court should defer to the legislature if the legislature passes a law that rides roughshod over the right of Iowans to exercise bodily autonomy,” he says.

The court is expected to issue a ruling in June.