Iowa

Now that Iowa’s 6-week abortion ban is in effect, what options do women have for care?

Published

1 year ago

August 1, 2024

Press Room

Now that Iowa’s 6-week abortion ban is in effect, what options do women have for care?

With Iowa’s six-week abortion ban in effect, what options do women have for their reproductive care?

The state’s new law prohibits abortion when fetal cardiac activity can be detected on an ultrasound, typically at about six weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies and to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The state ban drastically limits abortion clinics’ operations and further shifts the legal landscape in the Midwest. Iowa now joins 22 states that have enacted some type of abortion ban since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed reproductive rights nationwide for half a century.

Here’s what women should know:

More: What you should know about Iowa’s 6-week abortion ban that is now in effect

What do abortion laws look like in states surrounding Iowa?

Missouri bans abortion in almost all circumstances. The state law has limited exceptions to save the pregnant woman’s life and to prevent serious risk to the pregnant woman’s physical health.

South Dakota also has a total ban on abortion, except in cases when it’s required to save the pregnant woman’s life. Anyone who provides an illegal abortion could face a felony charge punishable by up to two years in prison.

Nebraska law bans abortion at 12-weeks pregnancy, with limited exceptions, and requires patients seeking abortions to undergo counseling and a 24-hour waiting period.

Kansas and Wisconsin have less restrictive abortion bans, but those states do not have laws or legal precedence that offer the same protections as other states.

In Kansas, abortion is illegal at 22 weeks of pregnancy. Wisconsin law prohibits the procedure at 22 weeks and requires patients to undergo a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion.

Which states surrounding Iowa protect abortion access?

Abortion is protected in Illinois and Minnesota.

There are no gestational limits on abortion in Minnesota, nor any other restrictions surrounding the procedure.

In Illinois, abortion is legal until the pregnancy reaches “viability,” or the stage when a fetus is developed enough to survive outside the uterus without medical help.

What does access to abortion care look like in other states?

Because of Illinois’ and Minnesota’s protections, health care providers and other abortion rights advocates say they will have channel resources or otherwise help Iowa patients travel to these states now that Iowa’s ban is in effect.

Iowa law does not prohibit residents from traveling out-of-state to seek abortion care.

Just under a dozen clinics throughout Minnesota provide in-person abortion care, meaning some patients may have to travel as far as the Twin Cities to find an appointment. However, that does not include telemedicine and other options meant to help patients access abortion pills through the mail.

Illinois has a much greater availability of in-person abortion clinics, according to abortionfinder.org. That’s on top of virtual providers and abortion pill mail delivery.

Planned Parenthood North Central States President and CEO Ruth Richardson said the organization has been expanding capacity in clinics near Iowa’s border, including the organization’s Mankato clinic in Minnesota. The organization has also expanded clinic space at its location in Omaha.

However, Iowa’s ban comes as Illinois and Minnesota already saw a huge surge in out-of-state patients seeking care last year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a policy and research organization that supports reproductive health access.

Data shows Illinois experienced the largest increase in the number of patients traveling from other states, with more than 37,000 people traveling into the state for abortion care last year.

Guttmacher found about 3,000 patients traveled to Minnesota from other states — including some from as far as Texas — last year.

More: Iowa’s new 6-week abortion ban expected to become a pivotal election issue this November

How are abortion rights advocates helping patients travel for care out-of-state?

In light of abortion bans nationwide, websites have been established to help patients find appointments near them, such as abortionfinder.org or ineedana.com.

Planned Parenthood also has a similar website for its clinics. Advocates in Iowa have also established a website, freedomiowa.com, that includes options for resources for those affected by the state ban.

But for some patients, finding an available appointment is just one step in a challenging process to access abortion care, some advocates say.

Many patients, especially those who are low-income or are part of marginalized communities, may lack transportation, or be unable to find reliable childcare or take time off work for out-of-state care.

Advocacy organizations in Iowa say they are prepared to help patients overcome these barriers. Planned Parenthood North Central States, which includes Iowa, employs patient navigators to help patients find an appointment and to access financial aid to afford expenses related to that care.

The Iowa Abortion Access Fund recently partnered with the Chicago Abortion Fund to help manage the anticipated influx from Iowa. The organization offers grants to Iowans to help pay for the procedure as well as other related expenses, such as travel, lodging and childcare.

Iowa Abortion Access Fund is directing clients to contact Chicago Abortion Fund directly by calling (312) 663-0338 or by filling out an online form.

Michaela Ramm covers health care for the Des Moines Register. She can be reached at mramm@registermedia.com, at (319) 339-7354 or on Twitter at @Michaela_Ramm.

Source link

Click to comment

Iowa

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth

Published

9 hours ago

October 23, 2025

Press Room

Iowa ‘illegal reentry’ law remains blocked, but 8th Circuit questions injunction’s breadth

A federal judge did not err when finding an Iowa immigration enforcement law likely unconstitutional, a federal appellate court ruled.

But it is sending the case back to determine whether the state should nonetheless be allowed to enforce the law in some cases.

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Oct. 23 decision upholds an injunction blocking Iowa from enforcing Senate File 2340, which Gov. Kim Reynolds signed in April 2024 to make “illegal reentry” a crime under state law.

In a lawsuit bought by the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, Judge Stephen Locher ruled last year that immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility and Iowa’s law is invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

“As a matter of politics, the new legislation might be defensible,” Locher wrote in June 2024. “As a matter of constitutional law, it is not.”

Thursday’s decision is technically the second time the 8th Circuit has ruled against the law.

Originally, Iowa was sued twice: by Migrant Movement for Justice and the Biden Administration. Locher granted injunctions in both cases, and in January, the 8th Circuit affirmed his ruling in the DOJ lawsuit and dismissed the second injunction as duplicative.

Shortly after, though, the Trump administration dismissed the federal government’s challenge, and the court agreed to rehear and rule on the injunction in the Migrant Movement for Justice case.

What did Iowa’s immigration law do?

Under the 2024 law, entering or residing in Iowa after being deported from or denied entry to the U.S. or failing to depart when ordered became a state offense. It followed a similar law Texas adopted, both of which have since been blocked by courts.

The Iowa law also required judges to order anyone convicted under the law to return to their country of origin.

In his order blocking the law, Locher identified several problems: Most glaringly, a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that state-level immigration laws interfere with and are preempted by federal immigration enforcement.

In the case of Iowa, Locher noted, having state judges order people to leave the country bypasses the extensive and often case- and country-specific federal system to decide when, how, and to where a person can be deported.

“This creates an untenable dichotomy between federal and state law in an area where the Supreme Court has recognized that the United States must speak with a single, harmonious voice,” Locher wrote.

The law also does not make any exceptions for people with current legal resident status. That’s a problem for several of the plaintiffs in the Migrant Movement case, who at one time were deported or denied entry but later were able to obtain legal residency.

While Attorney General Brenna Bird said she did not intend to enforce the law against legal residents, Locher noted county prosecutors would not be bound by her statement.

8th Circuit finds law likely unconstitutional

In it’s ruling Thursday, the 8th Circuit once again upheld Locher’s reasoning.

Judge Duane Benton wrote for the court that Iowa’s law intrudes into federal immigration authority even further than the Arizona law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012.

Allowing state officials not only to detain people for suspected immigration violations, but to order them removed from the country, with a potential prison sentence of 10 years, greatly exceeds the state’s powers under the U.S. Constitution, the court found.

The court rejected Iowa’s arguments in defense of the law, finding that many ran contrary to the plain text of the statute.

For example, where Bird argued the law only required the state to deliver aliens to a “port of entry” — namely, the Des Moines airport — and would have no effect outside the state’s borders, the appeals court noted the law requires migrants to leave the entire country, not just the state, under penalty of prison.

“Any enforcement of the act would likely conflict with federal law by interfering with the enforcement discretion that federal law gives to federal officers,” Benton wrote. “(Plaintiffs) have clearly shown that their facial challenge is likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Act stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

Yes, but: to whom does the injunction apply?

Locher’s injunction blocked any state agent, including county prosecutors, from enforcing the law against anyone. That may be too broad, the appellate court says.

In a June 2025 case against Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited the use of “universal injunctions” that apply beyond the parties in a particular case.

In light of that ruling, the 8th Circuit is directing Locher to consider whether he has authority to block enforcement by all state officers, as opposed to just those named in the lawsuit, and whether the law can be enforced against individuals who are not members of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice.

Regardless of how the injunction may be modified, the lawsuit is likely to continue.

Locher’s June 2024 order put in place a preliminary injunction, blocking the state from enforcing the law while the case progressed. Barring further appeals, Thursday’s appellate decision means the case will continue before Locher for further proceedings before the court could potentially make its injunction permanent.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com or 715-573-8166.

Source link

Iowa

Iowa State Cyclones Defensive Coach Still Searching for Answers at Key Position

Published

1 day ago

October 22, 2025

Press Room

Iowa State Cyclones Defensive Coach Still Searching for Answers at Key Position

Jeremiah Coope — Raymond Carlin III-Imagn Images

Jon Heacoc — Raymond Carlin III-Imagn Images

Source link

Iowa

Here’s how D.O.G.E. Task Force would change Iowa

Published

2 days ago

October 22, 2025

Press Room

Here’s how D.O.G.E. Task Force would change Iowa

DES MOINES, Iowa (Gray Media Iowa State Capitol Bureau) — It is 136 pages long, took seven months to put together, and looks to modernize, streamline, and reshape state and local governments in Iowa. It also already has opposition before any of the new ideas have been put into implementation.

On Tuesday, Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, released the Iowa D.O.G.E. (Department of Government Efficiency) Task Force’s report that the 15-member volunteer group submitted to her last month.

Reynolds said while discussing the task force’s 45 recommendations, “It is important that we never settle, that we continue to look for ways to be more effective, efficient and accountable to the taxpayers of Iowa.”.

Read the task force recommendations here.

Task force members called for changing Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System (IPERS) but not eliminating it. The report suggested keeping IPERS available for current state employeees but giving new employees the option of using IPERS or joining a defined contribution plan.

Members also suggested studying benefits that state workers receive and whether they contribute enough to their health care costs.

The task force called for incentives for teachers based on performance, a focus on expanding the number of instructors in high demand fields, and introducing work-based learning experiences to freshmen and sophomore high school students.

Utilizing technology so that artificial intelligence could take over some tasks in state government and freeing up workers to concentrate on other areas was also a suggestion. So was digitizing government forms.

The task force recommended sharing services whenever possible in local government, which could be part of an overall strategy of lessening expenses in local government to reduce property taxes.

House Minority Leader Brian Meyer, a Des Moines Democrat, criticized the overall set of proposals.

“This Governor’s DOGE task force report is deeply disturbing, coming from individuals who’ve never worked a day in their lives. They’re attacking the very people who keep our communities strong, teachers, public safety officers, and other dedicated public servants,” Meyer said in a statement.

Other than stressing that she would preserve IPERS, Reynolds did not take positions on the list of recommendations. She could announce some of them as part of her 2026 legislative priorities when she delivers the annual Condition of the State Address in January.

Source link