AG Nessel Asks Michigan Court of Claims to Find Abortion Restrictions Discriminatory

LANSING – Today, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a motion (PDF) with the Michigan Court of Claims in Northland v Nessel, a case challenging several abortion restrictions under Michigan’s fundamental constitutional right to reproductive freedom. The motion urges the Court to find the abortion restrictions unconstitutionally discriminatory.  

On May 13, the Court struck down several state abortion regulations, including the 24-hour waiting period, the informed consent requirements, and the ban on advanced practice clinicians providing abortion care, but upheld the mandatory coercion screening provisions. The Attorney General’s motion requests that the Court take a second look at the coercion screening provisions, holding that they unconstitutionally discriminate against patients seeking abortion care. 

As the Attorney General noted in her post-trial brief (PDF), the Michigan Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating against individuals who exercise their fundamental right to reproductive freedom — a right that includes abortion care. Each of the challenged abortion restrictions are discriminatory, Attorney General Nessel contends, because they treat those seeking an abortion differently than those seeking to access any other form of reproductive healthcare service without good reason for doing so. 

“Women wishing to continue their pregnancy, those seeking management for a miscarriage, and men pursuing a vasectomy all may do so without this level of state interference,” Nessel said. “Michigan residents and their healthcare providers deserve the same freedom when it comes to the deeply personal decision to have an abortion. The people of Michigan have made clear that unequal treatment has no place in our state, and I will continue working to ensure that our laws reflect the constitutional standards that Michigan voters have demanded.” 

Attorney General Nessel’s motion asks the Court to amend or reconsider its May 13 opinion and hold that the challenged coercion screening provisions are unconstitutional.