12/19/2023 0 Comments Iowa supreme court decisions today![]() In a case challenging the constitutionality of a law mandating a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion, the defendant state officials appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the abortion-provider plaintiffs. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Mitchell E. STATE OF IOWA and IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellants. 21–0856 Submitted February 23, 2022-Filed JPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND, INC., and JILL MEADOWS, M.D., Appellees, vs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) PPH II is overruled and (2) therefore, the Casey undue burden test applied in PPH I remains the governing standard. The district court granted summary judgment for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood successfully sued in district court to block the statute from taking effect. In 2020, the general assembly added a mandatory 24-hour waiting period for abortion to pending legislation limiting courts' ability to withdraw life-sustaining procedures. Reynolds (PPH II), 915 N.W.2d 206, (Iowa 2018), the Supreme Court rejected the undue burden test and found that the due process clause of the Iowa Constitution protected abortion as a fundamental right. In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. ![]() Iowa Board of Medicine (PPH I), 865 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 2015), the Supreme Court applied the federal undue burden test established in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. “The state's reliance on the Nutrient Reduction Strategy is misplaced. We need a new approach to make any progress.The Supreme Court held that the Iowa Constitution is not the source of a fundamental right to an abortion necessitating a strict scrutiny standard of review for regulations affecting that right. “By prioritizing private rights over the public, we make the public pay for or tolerate the water pollution that flows downstream,” said Gronstal. The recommendations include a rebalancing of public and private rights. IEC has highlighted the inadequacies of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy at issue in the case, recently publishing an analysis and policy recommendations. This principle was at the core of the complaint.” “If the case had proceeded, the plaintiffs could have shown a wide range of water quality problems that limit the public’s ability to use our waters,” said Ingrid Gronstal, Water Quality Program Director. “The court concluded the legislature is responsible for taking action to address our water quality problems. The legislature must act to protect the Raccoon River, and all of Iowa's waterways, for the use and benefit of all Iowans. “The decision will reduce the ability of Iowa courts to correct environmental harms in the future.” “The dissents pointed out that the issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs could bring this claim at all, not whether they would succeed on the merits,” said Michael Schmidt, IEC Staff Attorney. It maintains the status quo – polluted water that is getting worse, not better, and state leadership that is unwilling to take meaningful action. The decision will limit Iowans from seeking relief when our shared public resources are polluted. ![]() Today the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a decision by a lower court that allowed a lawsuit by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and Food &Water Watch to proceed. IEC is disappointed that a narrow majority of the Iowa Supreme Court decided not to allow the case to move forward. ![]() IEC Statement on Supreme Court decision in Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and Food & Water Watch case IEC Reacts to Supreme Court Decision on Protecting Iowa Water ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |