Michigan court overturns 24-hour abortion waiting period

Two years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, a Michigan court blocked the state’s required 24-hour waiting period before an abortion.

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel ruled the requirement infringes on the state’s constitutional right to abortion, which was approved by voters in November 2022. The ruling also stops the state from mandating certain information be given before the procedure, saying it can be coercive.

“The 24-hour waiting period forces needless delay on patients after they are able to consent to a procedure, thus burdening and infringing upon a patient’s access to abortion care,” Patel said. “This burdens and infringes upon a patient’s freedom to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care.”

Some informed consent mandates that will be barred include showing depictions of the fetus, information on adoption, parenting and prenatal care, as well as offering an ultrasound. Resources against coercion and domestic violence will still be available.

Attorney General Dana Nessel applauded the decision.

“The Court of Claims held that several abortion regulations under Michigan law are largely inconsistent with Michigan’s constitutional right to reproductive freedom and only ‘exacerbate the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care,’” Nessel said. “These provisions only served to delay and mislead patients, which is contradictory to the goals of healthcare.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 27 states currently require a waiting period before abortions can be completed. After the passage of Prop 3 in 2022, Democrats in the state legislature were unable to garner enough support to repeal the waiting period or informed consent provisions. Subsequently, abortion providers filed a complaint Feb. 6, which overruled both requirements this Tuesday.

The pro-life group Right to Life of Michigan described Patel’s decision as a threat to women’s safety.

"There is no question women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic today than they were a year ago," Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said in a statement.

Patel said Michigan’s state constitution protection of abortion allows for evaluating not just if restrictions create an “undue burden,” but rather any burden at all.

“…the court rejects the intervening-defendant’s argument that the state may burden making or effectuating decisions about abortion care, so long as the regulations do not unduly burden such decisions,” Patel said. “The plain language of (the constitutional amendment) does not support that argument.”