LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – A significant legal debate unfolded last Tuesday in Michigan as a state judge heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of several state abortion regulations. This case represents the first substantial test of a voter-approved 2022 amendment that enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution.

What is the lawsuit about?

Filed by abortion providers and a student group called Medical Students for Choice, the lawsuit challenges state laws that mandate a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion, require specific information to be provided to patients, and prohibit advanced practice clinicians from performing abortions.

MORE NEWS: Democratic Exodus? Michigan’s Arab Vote Sends a Loud Message

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel, appointed by Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, presided over the nearly two-hour hearing, where she considered arguments for and against temporarily halting the enforcement of these regulations while the case is pending. A ruling on this interim measure is expected in the coming months.

The case emerges from a contentious debate preceding the 2022 vote on Proposal 3, known as the Reproductive Freedom for All proposal. The 2022 ballot measure, which enshrined reproductive rights into Michigan’s state constitution, has not ended the contentious debate over abortion in the state. Opponents have argued that the constitutional amendment would nullify existing state abortion regulations, while proponents accused them of fearmongering.

Group claims Prop. 3 overrides previous state legislation mandates.

However, over a year later, the legal battle did materialize, with abortion providers contending that the constitutional amendment overrides these state regulations.

Rabia Muqaddam, representing the Northland Family Planning Center in Southfield, argued in court that the existing laws deter people from seeking abortions and limit their access, thereby violating the constitutional right to an abortion.

Muqaddam emphasized that informed consent should be individualized, not standardized through state-formulated pamphlets, and argued that the ban on advanced practice clinicians performing abortions ignores other public health codes and standards of care.

Abortion provider says previous regulations harm patients.

“We have a law that does not advance patient health, significantly harms people, and as a result, cannot stand,” Muqaddam asserted, adding, “The state has acknowledged that these laws do impact or burden to some degree and if they burden to some degree, then we think they infringe” on a woman’s right to get an abortion in the state.

MORE NEWS: State Budget Grows 15.5% Over a Decade, Adjusted for Inflation

Assistant Attorney General Eric Restuccia defended the regulations, arguing that they ensure patients receive necessary information to make informed decisions and that they were previously upheld under Roe v. Wade, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2022.

Restuccia is defending the state law, despite the fact that his boss, Attorney General Dana Nessel, is siding with the plaintiffs in her capacity as attorney general. To manage this, Nessel’s office has established a “conflict wall” to argue both sides of the case, as she mentioned three months ago.

Assistant AG argues that patients should be able to be informed.

“The idea of not providing information to people so they make decisions unaware doesn’t ultimately advance reproductive freedom,” Restuccia argued. He maintained that these regulations, which may cause incidental delays or inconveniences, do not constitute unconstitutional burdens on abortion rights and should remain within the legislature’s purview. Restuccia said, “These are really legislative questions. The proper place to bring these points is to the Legislature, and not to this court.”

Judge Patel’s inquiries during the hearing focused on the scope of the 2022 amendment and its implications by past court decisions that upheld the challenged regulations. She acknowledged the clarity and explicit nature of the amendment, saying, “The amendment is very explicit and it’s unambiguous,” Patel stated. “It provides that an individual’s reproductive freedom shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon.”

Who is the lawsuit against?

The lawsuit discussed was filed in February against Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

While some laws conflicting with the new constitutional amendment were repealed by the Democratic legislative majority, they lacked the support within their caucus to repeal the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent provisions, prompting the lawsuit.

Abortion debates have not subsided in Michigan regardless of the passage of Prop. 3.

As the state navigates this legal challenge, it also faces a separate lawsuit from Right to Life of Michigan and other parties seeking to overturn the 2022 amendment altogether, claiming it creates a “super right” to reproductive freedom conflicting with the U.S. Constitution.

Since Proposal 3 went into effect and after Roe vs. Wade’s demise, Michigan has become a hub for abortion services in the Midwest with as many as 1 in 6 abortion patients coming from out of state.

Nearby resource centers like PRC of Grand Rapids, which seek to discourage abortions, have expanded their services to include ultrasounds and other medical options, aiming to provide pregnant individuals with more choices. Attorney General Dana Nessel has criticized these centers for being deceptive and spreading misinformation.

As legal and social battles over abortion continue, this issue is likely to resurface in this year’s elections again. Governor Whitmer and the Biden campaign are using it as a wedge issue, accusing former President Trump of wanting to ban abortions nationwide. Meanwhile, everyone is awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on mifepristone, a drug used for medical abortions.