Third-World Agendas in America and the Big, Beautiful Bill
The Woman Who Allegedly Spat on Ed Martin Has a Twitter Username That's...Interesting
DOGE Haters Are Going to Hate What Chief Justice John Roberts Just Did
Who Will Be Florida's Next Governor?
Federal Investigation Uncovers Disturbing Truth at Columbia University
From Hate Crime Hoax to Handshake Settlement — Jussie Smollett Walks Away
Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration From Terminating Student Visas
Antisemitism Terror in D.C.
Illegal Alien Nabbed After Voting in U.S. Elections, Stealing $400K in Benefits Using...
On Thin Ice: The View Hosts Told to Tone Down Angry Anti-Trump Rhetoric
Tim Walz Is for Some Reason Still Ranting About 'Authoritarianism'
Apple Under Pressure to Build iPhones in U.S. as Trump Threatens 25% Tariff
Here's What a Judge Said After DOJ Charges One NJ Democrat but Dismisses...
These Posts From NPR, PBS Have People Clamoring for Outlets to Be Defunded
Leftist Congressman Invited Father of Suspect in Murder of Israeli Embassy Staffers to...
Tipsheet

Judge Halts Several Abortion Regulations in This State

AP Photo/Rebecca Santana

A Michigan judge issued a preliminary injunction against the state’s 24-hour waiting period for getting an abortion, the state’s “informed consent” law, and a ban on advanced practice clinicians from providing abortions.

Advertisement

According to the Detroit Free Press, the lawsuit was brought forward by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of an abortion provider and Medical Students for choice. 

Reportedly, the passage of a pro-abortion ballot measure that enshrined abortion rights in the state’s constitution was the reason for the injunction (DFP):

Proposal 3's passage, Patel wrote, blocks the state from enforcing the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent laws in Michigan, as well as the state's ban on advanced practice clinicians (APCs) providing abortion care. Preliminary injunctions are court orders that prevent a party, in this case the state of Michigan, from continuing a practice deemed harmful to plaintiffs when a judge determines plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their legal challenge.

"Turning to whether the challenged laws burden or infringe upon the freedom to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care, the Court finds, on the record currently before it and for purposes of issuing preliminary injunctive relief, that they do," Patel reportedly wrote.

Advertisement

The judge added that the waiting period for abortions creates a “needless delay” for patients.

"That is, at this time, the Court is convinced that 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 preventing a patient from having the type of abortion that they prefer," Patel wrote.

Patel did not issue a preliminary injunction against part of the law that requires abortion providers to determine if a patient was coerced into having an abortion.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement