Court strikes down Michigan’s 24-hour waiting period for abortions 

Michigan’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period for receiving abortions has been struck down after a Michigan Court of Claims judge determined Tuesday that the rule was unconstitutional.

Michigan voters enshrined the right to an abortion and “reproductive freedom for all” into the state constitution in the November 2022 election through a ballot measure. In February 2024, abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging several of Michigan’s provisions around abortion access, asserting that they work against Michiganders’ new constitutional rights.

In addition to the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel struck down requirements surrounding mandatory counseling that required abortion providers to provide an image of a fetus to patients receiving abortions. Another stricken rule had barred nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives and physician assistants from performing abortions

However, Patel upheld a rule that requires abortion providers to screen for signs of coercion, saying the rule does not violate the constitutional right to reproductive health care.

Michigan voters OK abortion, voting rights and term limits proposals 

“The interest to be protected in this case is the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. The Court has deemed the majority of the provisions in the challenged laws to unconstitutionally burden and infringe upon that right,” Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday.

Striking down the 24-hour waiting period has been a top priority for abortion access advocates, as Planned Parenthood of Michigan reported in 2023, when lawmakers were considering a repeal, that the rule causes around 150 patients to cancel their appointments each month due to difficulty scheduling with work, transportation or other reasons.

Plaintiffs arguing for the repeal in the case argued that the waiting period does nothing to promote patient health or protect against coercion into getting an abortion. Instead, proponents for the repeal argued that the waiting period works to ensure it becomes more difficult, logistically and medically, to receive quality abortion care earlier in a pregnancy.

“…the Court finds that the mandatory 24-hour waiting period burdens and infringes upon patients’ rights to reproductive freedom,” Patel wrote in her opinion Tuesday. “The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a staunch supporter of abortion rights, has long supported eliminating the state’s waiting period placed on abortions, saying in a statement Tuesday that the court’s decision recognizes the struck down provisions as burdensome and obstructive to abortion care.

“This ruling affirms what Michiganders made clear when they voted to enshrine a fundamental right to reproductive freedom in our state constitution: that deeply personal medical decisions belong to individuals and their providers,” Nessel said. “I will continue fighting to defend reproductive freedoms and protect bodily autonomy for Michigan residents.”

Meanwhile, Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom said in a statement that the court’s decision endangers womens’ ability to make informed and safe medical decisions for themselves.

“Abortion is the only medical procedure of its kind in which the patient now is expected to go in blind,” Roseboom said in a statement. “There is no question that women are at greater risk when they enter an abortion clinic in Michigan today than they were even a few years ago.”

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who championed the effort to remove the barriers, said the ruling “reaffirms that Michigan is a state where you can make your own decisions about your own body with a trusted health care provider, without political interference.”