Christopher Schandevel. (screen shot from Supreme Court video)
The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on whether a law passed in 2018 banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy should be allowed to take effect.
Christopher Schandevel argued for the state, saying the injunction against the law should be lifted based on state and federal rulings that abortion is not a constitutional right. “We know now today that even though this court and the U.S. Supreme Court had previously misinterpreted the federal constitution and the Iowa Constitution that what the legislature did in 2018 and enacting the fetal heartbeat law it’s perfectly consistent with both constitutions because there is no fundamental right to abortion,” he says.
Schandevel says the legislature has a rational conceivable basis for the law — which is the state’s interest in protecting and preserving fetal life. “Especially in this case that case at a point in fetal development when the unborn child’s heart has begun beating when brainwaves are detectable when she can already move when she already has sensory receptors. When her facial features her chin, her jaw her cheeks have already begun to form at a point in pregnancy when absent abortion the vast majority of unborn children will survive until birth,” Schandevel says.
He says the district court wrongly ruled that it could not dissolve the injunction. “If there is a substantial change or if there’s a change in the law, the interpretation of the statute or the Constitution by this court, then the party is enjoined based on a prior interpretation that is determined to be erroneous, have the ability to come into court where that injunction was first issued, file a motion to modify or dissolve the injunction just like we did here,” he says.
Peter Im. (Supreme Court photo)
Peter Im presented the arguments for Planned Parenthood. “First the ban is void because it was unconstitutional when it was passed. Second Iowal procedures do not permit the state’s motion, and third there was no change in law that would justify vacating the injunction,” Im says. The justices raised several questions about why the injunction couldn’t be dissolved based on the new rulings on abortion and previous cases. Im responded.
“I think that if this Court were to allow the state to proceed on the merits that would open the floodgates of litigation to any litigant who is bound by an injunction,” he says. Im says this case would set a new precedent on the issue. “Certainly this court has held that changes in fact do justify modifications of injunctions but I don’t believe that this court is squarely held that a change in the law justifies a motion to modify,” Im says.
Abortion is now legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy in Iowa. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling at a later date.