Abortion-rights activists in Michigan are suing to remove barriers to abortion access that they argue conflict with the reproductive rights amendment passed by ballot initiative in November 2022.
The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice, challenging the law that requires a 24-hour informed consent waiting period before receiving an abortion.
“Through [the amendment], Michigan voters overwhelmingly declared that they will not tolerate paternalistic and medically baseless restrictions on abortion like those we are challenging in this case,” CRR Senior Staff Attorney Rabia Muqaddam said.
The plaintiffs also are asking the court to overturn legislation that permits the dissemination of informed consent information to patients and prohibits advanced practice clinicians from providing abortions, saying that those also violate the reproductive rights amendment.
Michigan voters in 2022 approved a ballot measure that enshrined a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” in the state constitution, protecting abortion, contraception, fertility, and miscarriage care.
Last fall, the Michigan legislature took steps to remove several laws on the books that could be interpreted as hindering abortion access, such as preventing insurance companies from automatically covering abortion. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) signed the various repeal bills into law in November 2023.
Repealing the various measures received significant pushback from Republicans, who argued that the reproductive rights amendment did not preclude the state from enacting reasonable health and safety measures to regulate abortion procedures reasonably.
Although abortion-rights advocates at the time wanted to repeal the 24-hour waiting period as well, Democrats did not have enough votes to push the measure through.
Michigan’s waiting period is also referred to as its informed consent law because it requires patients to confirm that they have reviewed information regarding the medical specifics of an abortion procedure, signs of a coerced abortion, and basic fetal development.
Abortion-rights advocates claim that the information in the informed consent protocol is “biased counseling” rather than medically necessary for patients making a major health decision. The lawsuit documents do not address the accuracy of the fetal development material provided by the state Department of Health and Human Services.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The plaintiffs also contend that not allowing advanced practice clinicians, such as physician assistants or nurse practitioners, to perform the controversial procedure unnecessarily hinders access to abortion. A report from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research found in 2022 that 19 states allowed non-physicians to perform abortions and dispense abortion medications, such as mifepristone.
“With this lawsuit, we hope to eliminate these harmful restrictions and ensure the state’s laws reflect the will of Michigan voters,” Muqaddam said.
