Iowa judge blocks state’s ‘heartbeat bill’

Judge Joseph Seidlin of Polk County, Iowa, placed an injunction on the state’s “heartbeat bill” Monday, just days after the bill was signed into effect by Gov. Kim Reynolds.

Reynolds signed the law, which protects preborn children after a heartbeat is detected, on Friday. Often, a heartbeat is capable of being detected around six weeks gestation, though a preborn child’s heart first begins to beat 16 to 22 days post-fertilization. The law includes exceptions for rape and incest, and it also offers exceptions if the preborn child has a diagnosis “incompatible with life,” or to save the life of the woman (however, an induced abortion, which intentionally and directly ends the life of a preborn child, is not necessary to save the mother’s life).

“Even with the fetal heartbeat bill, the fight continues for a robust culture of life that welcomes children, supports mothers, and involves fathers,” Reynolds said in a statement upon signing. “As a pro-life governor, I will continue to promote policies designed to surround every person involved in a pregnancy with protection, love, and support. ”

Even before Reynolds signed the bill into law, the abortion industry issued a legal challenge. The lawsuit, filed by Planned Parenthood North Central States, the Emma Goldman Clinic, and the ACLU of Iowa, contended that the law posed an undue burden on women seeking abortion.

The First 10 Weeks Of Human Life

“We are seeking to block the ban because we know that every day this law is in effect, Iowans will face life-threatening barriers to getting desperately needed medical care — just as we have seen in other states with similar bans,” Rita Bettis Austen, legal director for the ACLU of Iowa, said in a statement.

In his Monday ruling, Seidlin granted the injunction while the court considers the lawsuit.

“The court will grant the temporary injunction requested here. In doing so, it recognizes that there are good, honorable and intelligent people – morally, politically and legally – on both sides of this upsetting societal and constitutional dilemma,” Seidlin’s conclusion read. “The court believes it must follow current Iowa Supreme Court precedent and preserve the status quo ante while this litigation and adversarial presentation which our Supreme Court has invited moves forward.”

Seidlin did, however, instruct the Iowa Board of Medicine to proceed with developing administrative rules for implementing the law. “Should the injunction entered today ultimately be dissolved, it would only benefit all involved, patients and providers alike, to have rules in place to administer the law,” he wrote.

Reynolds released a statement expressing her disappointment with the judge’s ruling.

“In their own words, the abortion industry stressed the need for a temporary injunction so they could continue with 200 scheduled abortions in the next two weeks. While Life was protected for a few days, now even more innocent babies will be lost,” she said. “The abortion industry’s attempt to thwart the will of Iowans and the voices of their elected representatives continues today, but I will fight this all the way to the Iowa Supreme Court where we expect a decision that will finally provide justice for the unborn.”