The Supreme Court has refused to reinstate Iowa’s heartbeat law, which would have protected virtually all preborn children in the state from abortion. Though the law remains blocked, the justices did say their ruling was largely procedural, and that legislators could pass a new, identical, law instead.
In 2018, Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected, though it contained exceptions for rape and incest. Yet in 2019, the law was struck down by Iowa Judge Michael Huppert, who claimed that “the due process and equal protection provisions of the Iowa Constitution” do not “serve the compelling state interest of promoting potential life.”
In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court blocked that law, and Reynolds challenged that ruling. Today, the court voted in a 3-3 decision to uphold the previous ruling. Writing for the justices who voted against reinstating the law, Justice Thomas Waterman said granting Reynolds’ request would mean bypassing the state legislature.
“In our view it is legislating from the bench to take a statute that was moribund when it was enacted and has been enjoined for four years and then to put it in effect,” he wrote.
Of course, preborn children, even in the first trimester, are living human beings and not mere “potential life,” with brain waves present, a four-chambered heart, and the ability to move his hands, feet, legs, and arms by six to seven weeks gestation.
Gov. Reynolds criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement.
“To say that today’s lack of action by the Iowa Supreme Court is a disappointment is an understatement,” she said. “Not only does it disregard Iowa voters who elected representatives willing to stand up for the rights of preborn children, but it has sided with a single judge in a single county who struck down Iowa’s legislation based on principles that have been flat-out rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no fundamental right to abortion and any law restricting it should be reviewed on a rational basis standard – a fact acknowledged today by three of the justices. Still, without an affirmative decision, there is no justice for the unborn.”
Reynolds vowed to continue fighting for preborn children.
“There is no right more sacred than life, and nothing more worthy of our strongest defense than the innocent unborn,” she concluded. “We are reviewing our options in preparation for continuing the fight.”
