A lawyer defending Iowa’s “fetal heartbeat” abortion law argued in court Friday morning that "a human child with a heartbeat is a living child."

But that was not the legal argument Judge Michael Huppert wanted to hear about the nation's most restrictive abortion law.

“We’re probably getting far afield from what I need to do today,” Huppert said. “I’ve got enough on my plate.”

Lawyers gave Huppert plenty to consider Friday in an hourlong hearing over the law that dealt with a range of issues surrounding abortion, from the accuracy of ultrasounds to the point at which a fetus is viable and whether that even matters.

At stake: Whether Iowa can continue to battle in the courts over a law that would limit abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected by doctors.

The law, which has drawn national attention, is now on hold but anti-abortion activists hope an eventual decision allowing it to go into effect would pave the way to limits on abortion across the country. That decision may be months or years from being reached.

The only issue Huppert needs to decide for now is whether there are any facts in dispute in the lawsuit that seeks to toss the law for good. If there are no facts in dispute, the Polk County judge can decide the case without a trial.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the Emma Goldman Clinic, which sued over the law, say there is no need for a trial.

Defending the law, the state's lawyers said there are many facts on which the two sides don’t agree. They argued Friday that the law is not a blanket ban, as it has been described, but a tailored regulation.

Attorneys representing the abortion providers, who say the law is unconstitutional, accused the state of trying to “muddy the picture” and urged Huppert to strike the law down.

Both sides will have to wait for their answer. Huppert said he could take up to 60 days to issue a written decision. Whatever he decides, his ruling will set up a likely appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.

Anti-abortion activists packed the courtroom

More than 80 people waiting to get into the hearing crowded the halls of the courthouse. Most were there with the Family Leader, an anti-abortion group, but others came through other anti-abortion movements.

Shelley Pitts, a board member of Iowa Right to Life, said she has been organizing against abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — and she sees the"fetal heartbeat" law in Iowa and similar abortion restrictions in other states as major progress.

"I’m hoping that someday this will go to the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade will be overturned," she said. "I pray it does."

The law would ban nearly all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur about six weeks into a pregnancy and often before a woman realizes she’s pregnant.

The two abortion providers sued in May, shortly after the law was signed by Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds. The lawsuit claims the law violates Iowa women’s due-process rights, their rights to liberty, safety and happiness and their rights to equal protection under Iowa’s constitution.

Abortion providers argue: The law is 'plainly unconstitutional'

Lawyers for two abortion providers say a trial isn't needed for Huppert to declare the law "plainly unconstitutional".

The state's high court in June found a fundamental right to abortion under the state's constitution. Planned Parenthood lawyers argue the heartbeat law "would not only restrict but actually foreclose this fundamental right for 98 percent of Iowa women."

Many of the topics raised by state lawyers Friday were already decided in the previous case, said Alice Clapman, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood. That includes the idea that women would change their behavior based on the law and would come in for an abortion earlier in their pregnancy.

“Respondents lost on those arguments,” Clapman said.

The Iowa Supreme Court's June decision means abortion restrictions in Iowa must survive strict scrutiny — the most stringent legal standard.

"It’s the most protective standard of review a court can give to a right and it’s in recognition that that right is fundamental," she said.

► Subscribe to the Des Moines Register

► Follow the Register on FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM | YOUTUBE

► Subscribe to our new politics newsletter at DesMoinesRegister.com/politicsnewsletter

‘This bill does not ban one single abortion’

Martin Cannon, a lawyer for the Thomas More Society, a conservative law firm representing the state, said in court that the law wouldn't ban abortions at all. Instead, women would seek abortions earlier in their pregnancies, he said.

"This bill does not ban one single abortion. Not one," Cannon said. "It simply requires that all abortions be done earlier. If you’re going to have an abortion, do it promptly before the child reaches this milestone."

After the court hearing, anti-abortion activists gathered for lunch near the courtroom. In that meeting, Cannon said he had hoped he would have been able to tell them in advance that he would they would hear him argue that the law wouldn't ban abortion.

"We need to make that argument because at least in theory its completely correct," he told the activists. He said he needed to counter the abortion-providers' claim the law would be an abortion ban.

But he also said the law, if it takes effect, would, indeed, eliminate, "a huge number of grisly murders of children.”

“Of course we feel that its human life from conception. Of course,” he said. “But at least we’ve knocked out all the abortions that are being done later even at the cost of having a number of them done sooner. We are still making history.”