URGENT PETITION: Tell the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade! Sign the petition here.
DES MOINES, July 2, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Iowa has formally enacted a law this week requiring women to wait at least 24 hours before aborting their babies, although it has already been delayed by a lawsuit from the abortion lobby.
An amendment to House File 594 requires mothers to wait at least 24 hours after their initial appointment before going through with an abortion. The language was passed as an amendment to a bill that ensures courts cannot withdraw life-sustaining care from a child without the parents’ consent.
“I am proud to stand up for the sanctity of every human life,” Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds declared after signing it Monday, We Are Iowa reports. “Life is precious, life is sacred, and we can never stop fighting for it. I applaud the Iowa lawmakers who had the courage to stand strong and take action to protect the unborn child.”
Last month, Planned Parenthood North Central States (PPNCS) and the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the legislation, claiming it’s about “burden[ing]” and “shaming” patients with “arbitrary barriers.”
In 2018, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a three-day waiting period on abortion as a supposed violation of “due process and equal protection.” However, current U.S. Supreme Court precedent expressly upholds shorter one-day waiting periods.
“The waiting period helps ensure that a woman's decision to abort is a well-considered one, and rationally furthers the State's legitimate interest in maternal health and in unborn life,” the nation’s highest court ruled in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “It may delay, but does not prohibit, abortions; and both it and the informed consent provisions do not apply in medical emergencies.”
The requirement was slated to take effect yesterday, July 1, but The Gazette reports that Sixth District Judge Mitchell Turner granted Planned Parenthood a temporary injunction the day before, based on a different reason. He concluded the abortion giant was likely to prevail in its argument that, by tacking two different issues together, the amendment violated the state’s single-subject rule.