Michigan judge tosses abortion restrictions, ending 24-hour waiting period and informed consent

Judge overturns abortion laws in Michigan

A dramatic ruling from a judge Tuesday removed some restrictions on abortion procedures in Michigan.

(FOX 2) - A Court of Claims judge ruled on Tuesday that Michigan's 24-hour waiting period and informed consent rules restricting abortion in the state were unconstitutional.

It's the latest win for advocates of reproductive freedom in a state that has already codified the right in the constitution.

What we know:

A judge struck down several restrictions on getting an abortion procedure in Michigan.

Judge Sima Patel said Michigan's mandatory 24-hour waiting period to obtain the procedure, as well as informed consent and a ban on advanced practice clinicians performing an abortion, were unconstitutional.

The ruling follows Michigan's 2022 ballot proposal which placed the right to an abortion in the state constitution. 

It was the first major test of how the court would weigh laws tied to reproductive health under the umbrella of the constitutional amendment.

What we don't know:

Whether the case will be appealed or not remains to be seen. 

It would be elevated to the Michigan Court of Appeals if the case was taken up - however, the party that chooses to do so is unknown. While state Attorney General Dana Nessel is technically a defendant in the case and her office is tasked with defending the state's laws, she does not support them.

What they're saying:

The governor released a statement Tuesday saying the ruling in Northland V. Nessel "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."

"Today’s ruling means that patients and doctors are no longer subject to even more of these outdated restrictions on abortion, including the forced waiting period and a ban on advanced practice clinicians from performing abortions," she said. 

Meanwhile, the Michigan Catholic Conference - a proponent of the restrictions - chided the order.

CEO of the conference Paul Long said "the broader public is seeing more clearly that the intent of [Proposal 3] was...to grant constitutional protections to an industry that places itself above the health and safety of women and the lives of pre-born children."