LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – The debate over Michigan’s abortion laws continues as legal arguments are underway regarding the state’s 24-hour waiting period and other remaining state abortion restrictions.
The Court of Claims began hearing oral arguments in Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel on Thursday, February 13th. Proceedings are set to continue through Tuesday, February 18th, with a break on Monday the 19th for Presidents’ Day. Judge Sima Patel in Detroit, who was appointed by Governor Whitmer in 2022, will rule on the case.
The case will determine whether current abortion restrictions conflict with Proposal 3, the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2022. This proposal enshrined reproductive rights in the state’s constitution.
The case that won’t quit.
The lawsuit by plaintiffs Northland Family Planning Center and Medical Students for Choice argues that Michigan’s abortion statutes still contain outdated roadblocks, despite the Legislature repealing a chunk of them in 2023. They contend that these laws infringe upon the newly established constitutional right to reproductive freedom and do not serve a legitimate medical purpose.
Arguments focus on whether the state’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period, required standardized informed consent and a ban on advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care violate the constitutional amendment passed by the voters.
Dana Nessel: the reluctant defendant.
Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is technically the defendant in this case, but only on paper – as she has backed the plaintiffs’ position from the start. Nonetheless, the state is required to defend its laws in court. The state, through attorneys insulated within the attorney general’s office, stepped into the lawsuit after Nessel, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs indicated they would not defend the law against Northland’s challenge.
Experts weighed in on restrictions.
The court ultimately granted a partial preliminary injunction last year, blocking enforcement of the 24- hour waiting period, the mandatory informed-consent requirements, and the APC ban.
During a hearing regarding the injunction in June of 2024, the court weighed expert testimony from medical professionals and bioethicists, who argued that the challenged laws impose unnecessary burdens on patients seeking abortions. Similar arguments have been put forth the last few days in the Court of Claims.
MORE NEWS: Mother of Three Who Left Her Children In Squalor to be Charged With Child Abuse
As the legal battle over Michigan’s abortion restrictions unfolds, the outcome of this case could significantly reshape the state’s reproductive healthcare landscape even more. With Judge Sima Patel set to rule on the matter sometime after the oral arguments conclude, both sides will be awaiting a decision that could either reinforce the remaining regulations or strike them down in favor of broader abortion access under Proposal 3.
