'Fetal heartbeat' abortion ban faces looming deadline and uncertain future in Iowa House

Nearly all Iowa abortions would be banned under a measure that faces a looming legislative deadline this week and mounting pressure from outside groups.

Despite Republican control of the Legislature and the governor's office, the measure, which would create the strictest anti-abortion law in the nation, faces an uncertain future.

If enacted, Iowa's law would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. It would prompt a near-certain legal battle — one the bill's supporters hope could ultimately knock down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that found women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Advocates for legal abortion, who staged a protest at the Capitol on Tuesday, said they will staunchly oppose any effort to take the state back to a time "before abortion was safe and legal."

"This bill is unconstitutional, it is unpopular and it is, frankly, unconscionable," said Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Public Affairs Director Erin Davison-Rippey. "It will threaten the lives of women."

Iowa already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, banning the procedure after 20 weeks into a pregnancy.

Senate File 2281 would go further, requiring physicians to test for a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — often before a woman realizes she's pregnant.

The bill says that except in cases of medical emergency, any physician who performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected could be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.

The bill defines a "medical emergency" as a situation in which the life of the mother is endangered by a physical disorder or injury. However, exceptions could not be made for situations when a woman's life is in jeopardy because of "psychological conditions, emotional conditions, familial conditions, or the woman’s age."

Will it move in the House?

The bill has already been approved by the Senate and leaders in the House this week assigned it to the Human Resources Committee.

Committee Chairman Rep. Joel Fry, R-Osceola, has not assigned the bill to a subcommittee and gave no indication Tuesday when or if he would bring it up for public discussion in the House.

"We’re still working through the processes of the bill and trying to determine what we can support and can’t support," he said.

In order to remain eligible for continued debate this year, the bill needs to be approved by a full committee by Friday. However, lawmakers are notorious for taking advantage of loopholes to that requirement in their efforts to revive bills technically declared "dead" for the session.

Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, said she's optimistic the legislation will fail to advance, but said that at the Capitol, "things can change very quickly — on this topic in particular."

"It’s so extreme," she said of the bill. "I mean, there’s no exception for rape, for incest, for the health of the women. ... So if you are in a situation where you could lose your opportunity to have children again, there’s nothing a doctor can do. These are medical decisions. They are not decisions that should be made here in government."

House Republicans, including those who support the idea of banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, say they still have concerns with the bill as written.

Some are concerned about the criminal penalties for physicians. More worry about a provision of the bill that says Iowa's current 20-week ban would be invalidated if the fetal heartbeat standard becomes law.

That becomes important if the law is challenged in court. A judge may choose to halt enforcement of parts or all of the law as litigation plays out. House Republicans said they want to ensure the 20-week ban remains in place if that should happen.

"There are a lot of people that are very passionate about the unborn, passionate about trying to move a heartbeat proposal forward," said Rep. Matt Windschitl, a Republican from Missouri Valley and a supporter of the bill. "But the devil’s in the details. It’s all in how you craft it."

He said the committee still needs to act, but he believes the measure will advance this year.

"The conversations I’ve had would lead me to believe that there is a better chance than not that we will have this discussion on the floor of the Iowa House," he said.

Court fight next?

Two other states — North Dakota and Arkansas — previously enacted similar measures but saw their laws blocked by the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider both cases, instead letting lower court rulings striking them down stand.

"Since Roe v. Wade was decided over 40 years ago, the court has repeatedly upheld the standard that women have a constitutional right to decide whether to end or continue a pregnancy before viability, which is around 24 weeks," said Shivana Jorawar, the state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, a national pro-choice organization that filed legal challenges to the abortion laws in North Dakota and Arkansas.

Jorawar said the organization "would always consider" filing suit against laws like the one Iowa is considering.

"A ban like Iowa’s... What they’re trying to do is very blatantly unconstitutional and would be set up for a challenge," she said.

Groups like the Iowa Catholic Conference, though staunchly anti-abortion, have been hesitant to support to the legislation precisely because of the likelihood it would end up in court.

"I think it’s fair to say we put up a yellow caution light on the constitutionality of the bill," said Iowa Catholic Conference Executive Director Tom Chapman. "If you look at what the court system has done with similar legislation, I think that kind of answers the question as to what our concerns are. We just feel that to have another decision propping up Roe v. Wade would not be helpful."

Others, though, said they relish the idea of a court challenge.

Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the Christian conservative organization The Family Leader, has mobilized his members to send out tens of thousands of emails to legislators in the House, urging them to take up the bill.

He argued that Roe v. Wade already is the law of the land. Challenging it as science and technology improve, he said, makes sense.

"I don’t think we would shrink away from that debate," he said. "If it goes to court, I think it has the opportunity for Iowa to be a leader in overturning Roe v. Wade in the country."

Iowa Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Kiron, has pushed for similar heartbeat legislation at the federal level and was on hand this week at the Iowa Capitol to talk privately with Republicans in both the House and Senate.

He, too, urged Republicans to advance the bill and to embrace a potential court fight.

"It’s seldom easy," he said. "But I want to let them know that we have pro-bono organizations — two of them — that will defend this thing before the court. And it’s precisely written to actually challenge the Supreme Court decision because somebody has to."

Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, has not said publicly whether she would sign the bill if it came to her desk.

"The governor would wait to comment on the bill until she sees it in its final form," Reynolds' spokesperson Brenna Smith said in an email. "However, she believes in protecting life and has said she will never stop working to protecting the unborn."