7/28/2023 0 Comments Decisions decisions quoteWaterman, for his part, pointed out that no other state courts have cited Dobbs to overrule their pre-existing state protections for abortion. "Until today my colleagues believed strongly that this court should presumptively follow federal precedents." ' Now that Dobbs has been released, my colleagues reject the wisdom of Dobbs. "One of the reasons the plurality in (the 2022 decision) refused to announce a controlling legal standard was that it wanted to wait and see the opinions in Dobbs because those opinions would 'impart a great deal of wisdom not have. Wade, the case that made abortion legal nationwide. That was the ruling last year that overturned Roe v. McDonald accuses Waterman (and Justice Edward Mansfield, who wrote a key abortion decision last year and joined Waterman's opinion Friday) of flip-flopping on whether Iowa should follow the lead of the U.S. "We fail the parties, the public and the rule of law in our refusal today to apply the law and decide this case," he wrote. That is an untrue statement, and repetition of the statement does not make it true," he wrote, asking later, "How can a case that specifically declined to find a right to terminate a pregnancy under the Iowa Constitution now serve as the legal basis for finding a law unconstitutional? Planned Parenthood and my colleagues have no legitimate answer."Īnd McDermott criticized the court for once again punting, in his view, on what the legal standard ought to be. ![]() "My colleagues repeatedly state that (the 2015 case) adopted the undue burden standard for claims arising under the Iowa Constitution. ![]() McDonald, though, accused Waterman of misreading a key 2015 precedent. More: 'Disappointment is an understatement': Kim Reynolds reacts to Iowa Supreme Court abortion decision "The state should not complain now: we granted (in 2022) all the relief on the governing constitutional standard that it sought in that case," Waterman wrote. Abortion opponents want to see that ratcheted down to what is called "rational basis review." To pass this test, laws need only be “rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” The standard Waterman said now applies focuses on whether a law places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. That opportunity came in the wake of a 2022 Iowa Supreme Court ruling that struck down an even stricter standard that held abortion to be a fundamental right. Waterman wrote that the standard for judging abortion laws remains the "undue burden" test formerly used in federal court, and that the state has failed to take advantage of the opportunity to change it to one more favorable to abortion restrictions. 'Untrue statement' on Iowa's legal standard Here are some of the most notable comments from each side in Friday's ruling. ![]() ![]() Justice Thomas Waterman wrote in favor of keeping the law blocked, while Justices Christopher McDonald and Matthew McDermott both wrote in favor of lifting the injunction. Nonetheless, three justices took up their pens to explain their thinking, showing unusually sharp divisions between members of a court ― all appointed by Republican governors ― that often rules unanimously even on contentious issues. The court deadlocked 3-3, leaving in place a lower court ruling blocking a 2018 state law that would prohibit most abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. Iowa's Supreme Court may not have set any precedents Friday in a hotly contested abortion case, but that doesn't mean the justices didn't have a lot to say.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |