By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Attorney General Dana Nessel filed briefs before the Court of Appeals on Friday opposing the state’s appeal to a lower court injunction that has prevented the state from enforcing a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and other statutory abortion regulations.
Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel issued a preliminary injunction in June blocking the state’s regulations requiring a 24-hour wait before obtaining an abortion are at odds with the constitutional protections for abortion designated by the passage of Proposal 22-3.
Patel’s ruling in Northland v. Nessel (COC Docket No. 24-000011) also blocked statutory requirements for mandatory uniform informed consent and a ban on advanced practice clinicians, or non-physician care professionals, from providing abortion care.
The preliminary injunction was not the final word but signaled Patel was likely going to rule for the plaintiffs when the case is decided.
Nessel was named as a defendant, as were the people of the state of Michigan, but the attorney general supported the plaintiffs’ position from the outset.
Because the state is obligated to defend its laws in court, the department’s attorneys representing Michigan filed an interlocutory challenge to Patel’s ruling in the Court of Appeals.
Nessel on Friday filed a brief to again oppose the state’s abortion regulations as at odds with clear constitutional protections, she said.
The attorney general argued that the Court of Claims did not err when it determined the challenged laws were unconstitutional.
Nessel specified that the framework set forth in Article I, Section 28 does not closely track with federal abortion caselaw pre-Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court case that dismantled the primary abortion right holding in Roe v. Wade. She further argued the framework in the Constitution shows that Patel “did not abuse (her) distraction in determining that the challenged laws are likely unconstitutional.”
“The injunction barring the enforcement of these select provisions is proper, as the court correctly agreed the challenged laws are likely unconstitutional,” Nessel said in a statement. “I remain committed to defending the reproductive freedoms Michiganders deserve, and emphatically supported enshrining in our state constitution.”
Gongwer News Service
Attorney General Dana Nessel filed briefs before the Court of Appeals on Friday opposing the state’s appeal to a lower court injunction that has prevented the state from enforcing a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and other statutory abortion regulations.
Court of Claims Judge Sima Patel issued a preliminary injunction in June blocking the state’s regulations requiring a 24-hour wait before obtaining an abortion are at odds with the constitutional protections for abortion designated by the passage of Proposal 22-3.
Patel’s ruling in Northland v. Nessel (COC Docket No. 24-000011) also blocked statutory requirements for mandatory uniform informed consent and a ban on advanced practice clinicians, or non-physician care professionals, from providing abortion care.
The preliminary injunction was not the final word but signaled Patel was likely going to rule for the plaintiffs when the case is decided.
Nessel was named as a defendant, as were the people of the state of Michigan, but the attorney general supported the plaintiffs’ position from the outset.
Because the state is obligated to defend its laws in court, the department’s attorneys representing Michigan filed an interlocutory challenge to Patel’s ruling in the Court of Appeals.
Nessel on Friday filed a brief to again oppose the state’s abortion regulations as at odds with clear constitutional protections, she said.
The attorney general argued that the Court of Claims did not err when it determined the challenged laws were unconstitutional.
Nessel specified that the framework set forth in Article I, Section 28 does not closely track with federal abortion caselaw pre-Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court case that dismantled the primary abortion right holding in Roe v. Wade. She further argued the framework in the Constitution shows that Patel “did not abuse (her) distraction in determining that the challenged laws are likely unconstitutional.”
“The injunction barring the enforcement of these select provisions is proper, as the court correctly agreed the challenged laws are likely unconstitutional,” Nessel said in a statement. “I remain committed to defending the reproductive freedoms Michiganders deserve, and emphatically supported enshrining in our state constitution.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
