Judge temporarily blocks Iowa's 'fetal heartbeat' law while lawsuit is resolved

Iowa's fetal heartbeat law, which would give the state the most restrictive abortion regulations in the country, has temporarily been put on hold.

Polk County District Court Judge Michael Huppert said at a hearing Friday that he would grant a temporary injunction while a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality is resolved.

The injunction stops the law from being enforced while the litigation works its way through the courts but does not permanently block the law, which was set to take effect July 1.

The immediate effect of Friday's decision is that women in Iowa can continue to make appointments and receive abortions prior to their pregnancy's 20th week, the same as under current law.

"That resolves the uncertainty so that women in Iowa don’t have to live with that uncertainty of not knowing whether or not they’ll have abortion rights, come July 1," said Rita Bettis, a lawyer with the ACLU of Iowa, which is representing the plaintiffs.

The hearing, which filled a Polk County courtroom with media and supporters and opponents of the law, lasted just a few minutes. Lawyers representing the state had agreed to the temporary injunction ahead of time and raised no objections in court.

"For the sake of getting to a resolution on the merits sooner and better, we have agreed to essentially allow the bill to be put on hold while the court resolves this case on its merits," said Martin Cannon, a lawyer at the conservative Thomas More Society, which is representing the state.

It was a short occasion halting the law that has attracted the eyes of the nation to Iowa's abortion policy.

"The court will be entering the requested order," Huppert said, closing the formal hearing on the emotional issue.

Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the Family Leader, a conservative group that opposes abortion, was present in the courtroom Friday. He said the state's decision not to oppose the temporary injunction wasn't a surprise and would allow them more time to prepare to defend the law on the merits.

"It’s really a message of the attorneys saying, 'We’re going to be best prepared as we take on this case,'" he said.

Shortly after the hearing, the Family Leader sent out an email urging supporters to pray that the courts uphold the law.

If it takes effect, the law would ban nearly all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a woman realizes she’s pregnant.

Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, signed the law at a May 4 ceremony accompanied with cheers and high-fives. Outside the governor's office, protesters decried the new law.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Iowa City-based Emma Goldman Clinic sued, arguing the law would violate Iowa women’s rights to due process, their rights to liberty, safety and happiness, and their rights to equal protection under Iowa’s constitution.

The plaintiffs are being represented by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Cedar Rapids firm Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, which is representing the Emma Goldman Clinic.

Normally, the office of Attorney General Tom Miller would defend the state in court, but Miller, a Democrat, disqualified his office from defending the fetal heartbeat law, saying that it "would undermine rights and protections for women."

The U.S. Supreme Court found women have a constitutionally protected right to abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. That decision protects women's right to an abortion before the fetus would be viable outside the womb — around 23 or 24 weeks and well after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Regulations before that point must not create an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, courts have decided.

Planned Parenthood is challenging the "fetal heartbeat" law under the Iowa Constitution, which it says also protects abortion rights. Filing the lawsuit in state court could thwart the conservative goal of taking a legal challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court with the hope of overturning Roe. The U.S. Supreme Court does not get to review state supreme court decisions concerning state constitutional questions.

More coverage: