After Iowa abortion ruling, should voters boot Justice David May? Rekha Basu weighs in.

Opponents of same-sex marriage waged ideological warfare against the courts in 2010. This time, Kim Reynolds, lawmakers and justices are responsible for the ideological warfare.

• Rekha Basu is a longtime syndicated columnist, editorial writer, reporter and author of the book, “Finding Your Voice.”
• She retired in 2022 as a Des Moines Register columnist.

Fifteen years ago, a group of evangelical political activists, furious over the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling for same-sex marriage, plotted revenge. Led by Bob Vander Plaats of the The Family Leader, they formed the ironically named “Iowans for Freedom.”

Funded partly by out-of-state money, it campaigned against three of the Supreme Court justices who happened to be up for retention elections in 2010. And it succeeded in unseating three fine ones: Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker.

Fast forward to this year, when a reconstituted Iowa Supreme Court, a majority hand-picked by Iowa’s anti-abortion Gov. Kim Reynolds, turns back the clock 50 years with a 4-3 ruling effectively outlawing abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy. In doing so, the justices overturned precedent that had withstood previous Supreme Court challenges, deciding that abortion laws should not be assessed under the strict-scrutiny standard previously invoked.

And now, in response, some women are taking a cue from what Iowans for Freedom accomplished in 2010. They’re encouraging others to turn the page on the November ballot — literally — to the side where judicial retention votes are, and vote against Justice David May. He’s the only one who voted for the six-week ban who’s up this year.

So, how could anyone who opposed the 2010 campaign support the same tactic? Comparisons between the two efforts get complicated. Retention elections used to be mostly pro forma shows of support for sitting judges appointed on a nonpartisan basis, who were doing their jobs properly. In 2010, same-sex marriage opponents couldn’t accept that their religious-based agenda had lost in a court of law bound by the Iowa Constitution. So it used the elections to wage ideological warfare. 

This time the ideological warfare has been waged by the governor, state lawmakers and the court’s new majority, by tampering with the once nonpartisan, constitutionally based process. Reynolds, an outspoken abortion opponent, called a special one-day session of the Legislature last summer to vote on the ban. Six weeks is before most women even know if they’re pregnant. Iowa’s Republican-led Legislature complied by passing it, though a nearly identical 2018 law had been permanently blocked. Reynolds had over the years appointed four new justices, including May, who could reliably be predicted to vote as they did.

More: Kim Reynolds picked this Legislature, and it steamrolled an extreme path for Iowa

The victims now will be untold numbers of pregnant women and girls, and children born to people ill-equipped to care for them.

“The ideological bias of this court does not reflect the will of most Iowans, and I’m not sure how far it follows the constitution,” said Des Moines’ Lea DeLong, the reproductive rights advocate who penned a letter making the case for opposing May’s retention. “My reading of the constitution is that it is intended to expand the rights and liberties of people.”

Her letter is being widely circulated by email. It points out that, as Reynolds’ appointee, May helped give Iowa “one of the most restrictive rulings in the nation against the rights of women.” It goes on to say, “It is an unfortunate development in our society that these kinds of actions against judges must happen, but I’m afraid we have had to learn some sad lessons from those who deny the rights of women. It is well known that most Iowans do not support these draconian restrictions on women’s lives and decisions.”

That’s true: 61% of Iowans polled support abortion rights in all or most cases. Still, the governor saw fit to impose her personal beliefs over the will of the majority.

DeLong is co-founder with Charlotte Hubbell of a group of some 15 women known as Iowans for Reproductive Freedom (one word but light years away from the group that waged the 2010 ballot battle). Formed in November, 2022, it has placed billboards defending reproductive rights on display around Des Moines.

They carry such captions as:

•  Reproductive Freedom Is KEY to a Strong Family.
•  Keep Government OUT of Women’s Health Care.
• If Men Got Pregnant, We Wouldn’t Be Discussing This.

Though individual members support the ballot idea and are circulating DeLong’s letter, the organization isn’t officially involved in the effort. DeLong herself doesn’t doubt May is a good person. And she’s mindful that Reynolds would likely replace him with another justice of the same ideological bent. But she wants this to be a wake-up call. “It sends a message,” she said. “Maybe it will encourage people to think very seriously about what this court is doing to women.”

Unlike Vander Plaats’ well financed and heavily publicized initiative, she says, “We’re not trying to organize a campaign. We will do what women have always done before: Spread information to our friends.”  

More importantly, the goal this time is protecting rights, not undermining them.

“Much as I don’t like the fundamental concept of doing this,” DeLong said, “I think so many destructive lines have been crossed.”

And she’s right. They have been.

Rekha Basu is a longtime syndicated columnist, editorial writer, reporter and author of the book, “Finding Your Voice.” She retired in 2022 as a Des Moines Register columnist. Her column, “Rekha Shouts and Whispers,” is available at basurekha.substack.com.