Connect with us

Michigan

Is Michigan’s 24-hour abortion waiting period legal? Judge to decide in new trial underway

Published

on

Is Michigan’s 24-hour abortion waiting period legal? Judge to decide in new trial underway


A trial has begun in a case that challenges Michigan abortion-related laws, including a 24-hour waiting period, with testimony focused on whether they place an undue burden on women seeking the procedure in the state.

The bench trial is taking place in Michigan’s Court of Claims in Detroit, where Northland Family Planning Center is asking Judge Sima Patel to rule unconstitutional three abortion regulations in state law — a mandatory 24-hour waiting period to terminate a pregnancy; requiring those seeking an abortion to obtain counseling and read information from the state before getting the procedure; and a ban on advanced-practice clinicians like physicians assistants and nurses performing an abortion.

The legality of the regulations came under scrutiny after Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2022 creating a state-level right to have an abortion.

“Because I worked with lobbying legislators in Lansing, my understanding was (these regulations were) to make it more difficult for women to get abortions (and) to delay abortions,” said Renee Chelian, the executive director of Northland Family Planning Center. “My observation was (their intent was that) it would deter women and when they read the materials it would change their mind.”

Advertisement

The state, represented by fire-walled attorneys within Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office, said it intervened in the lawsuit after Nessel, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs signaled they would not defend the law against the challenge brought by Northland.

“The challenged statutory provisions do not unconstitutionally deny, burden, or infringe on an individual’s right to reproductive freedom under Michigan’s Constitution … and they do not discriminate in the protection or enforcement of this fundamental right,” the state’s attorneys said in their motion to intervene in the lawsuit.

Northland sued Nessel, LARA Director Marlon Brown and MDHHS Director Elizabeth Hertel. Nessel, Brown and Hertel said they would not defend the constitutionality of the laws.

Hertel said MDHHS did not have the legal authority to enforce the challenged laws, which is why the state intervened on behalf of the people of Michigan. Hertel said adding the state as a party was the only way for meaningful and complete relief for Northland.

The Reproductive Freedom For All Amendment requires the state not to “deny, burden, or infringe upon this freedom barring a compelling state interest to protect the health of the individual seeking care,” Patel wrote in her order granting a preliminary injunction in June.

Advertisement

“Additionally, any statute or regulation that does deny, burden, or infringe upon reproductive freedom must only do so in order to protect the patient’s health, achieve this goal by the least restrictive means, be consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and not infringe upon an individual’s autonomous decision making.”

It appeared the laws Northland challenges, Patel wrote in her order, “are likely unconstitutional.” She will rule on the case after the trial, which is scheduled through Feb. 21.

Two people testified Thursday at the first day of the trial: Chelian and Dr. Charisse Loder, who works at the University of Michigan’s Women’s Clinic. None of the parties gave opening statements.

The law before the June preliminary injunction was granted required those pregnant to wait 24 hours to get an abortion after they received state-mandated informational materials. They either had to go to the clinic to get the materials or print them out themselves, both of which can cause hardship to people seeking an abortion, Chelian and Loder said.

Chelian and Loder said patients were often annoyed when they learned they could not have an abortion the day they made their appointment and would have to wait at least 24 hours for a new appointment.

Advertisement

“I observed people being frustrated, angry and upset that they had gotten a babysitter or a ride or taken a day off school or work, only to be turned away,” Chelian said. “They sometimes weren’t sure when they could come back, pushing them into another gestational limit or making it so they couldn’t get a medication abortion. … They couldn’t understand why the state had anything to do with this.”

The state argued that the 24-hour waiting period does not unduly burden access to abortion; instead it ensures people can exercise their right in an “informed, voluntary, and reflective manner.” Its attorneys asked Patel to affirm the laws and leave the question about any policy changes to the Legislature.

Appellate courts found that laws like the ones challenged by Northland did not constitute an undue burden on a woman’s right to reproductive freedom, the state wrote in its motion to intervene. The Michigan Court of Appeals found in 1992 that the objective of the laws was to ensure “a woman’s decision to obtain an abortion is informed, voluntary, and reflective.”

After the injunction, Chelian said employees at Northland spent less time on the phone talking about the state’s website with patients and can reduce waiting times for those who come in.

“It makes it much easier for them to get an appointment they want and have already made up their mind about,” Chelian said. “There’s no other medical procedure in this state where the patient is required to look at alternatives to the procedure they’re going to have.

Advertisement

“It’s biased, its unnecessary, it burdens the patient, there’s no reason for it. … It is not fair to make an assumption that they want something because you think it’s not a burden or someone else happens to think it’s not a burden.”

The delay and mandatory counseling were designed to pressure people into choosing to continue a pregnancy instead of having an abortion, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit contended the law also forces patients to read irrelevant, misleading or stigmatizing information that may not apply to their circumstances for ending a pregnancy. Loder said the materials provided by the state are misleading, overplaying the risks of abortion and downplaying the risks of pregnancy.

“I don’t believe (the materials) help my patient make an autonomous decision,” Loder said.

The state argued that the informational materials also do not put an undue burden on abortion care, and is in keeping with the state’s interest to protect a patient’s health, as does the law limiting abortion providers to licensed physicians.

Advertisement

“Providing a patient with medically accurate information is not a burden to that patient, is it?” Assistant Attorney General Kendell Asbenson asked Loder.

“I don’t agree with that statement,” Loder said.

“It’s a burden to provide medically accurate information to a patient?” Asbenson said.

“I think it’s a burden to provide medically accurate information that is not relevant to the patient,” Loder said, saying it would not be helpful to provide Asbenson, a man, information about female reproductive health.

The trial continues Friday.

Advertisement

kberg@detroitnews.com



Source link

Michigan

Sherrone Moore’s former assistant sues University of Michigan over alleged FOIA violations

Published

on

Sherrone Moore’s former assistant sues University of Michigan over alleged FOIA violations


A former University of Michigan assistant whose relationship with ex-coach Sherrone Moore was under investigation is accusing university officials of refusing to provide records related to the probe.

Paige Shiver filed the lawsuit on Wednesday in Washtenaw Circuit Court, claiming that U of M “arbitrarily and capriciously” violated the Michigan Freedom of Information Act by repeatedly denying her requests. Shiver and her legal team are seeking a court order requiring the university to disclose the records.

The lawsuit also alleges that throughout Shiver’s four-year employment with U of M, she was “discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Michigan law including Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.”

“The lawsuit filed today demands transparency and accountability from the University of Michigan, President Grasso and the Board of Regents,” said Shiver’s attorney, Andrew M. Stroth. 

Advertisement

On Wednesday, CBS News Detroit reached out to U of M, which says it has no comment.

The investigation led to Moore’s firing in December 2025. At the time, it was determined that he was in an inappropriate relationship with a staffer, who was later identified as Shiver. 

Moore was arrested hours later after authorities said he went to Shiver’s home and threatened to harm himself. He was charged with third-degree felony home invasion, as well as misdemeanor counts of stalking and of breaking and entering. Moore was sentenced to 18 months’ probation after pleading no contest to the two misdemeanor charges.

According to the lawsuit, Shiver filed a FOIA request in February 2026 for audio, video and transcripts of interviews of herself, her father, Jeff Shiver, and Moore. The lawsuit alleges that the university denied her request, citing the ongoing investigation.

The lawsuit alleges that Shiver submitted a similar request months later, in June, but was told by the university that it was “overly broad and vague” and “does not describe a ‘public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find the public record.’”

Advertisement

The lawsuit claims that requests were submitted in March and May, respectively, for all emails sent to the law firm Jenner & Block (UMconcerns@jenner.com) and for recordings of Shiver’s meetings by the university through Jenner & Block. However, those requests were denied because the university cited that it had no responsive records, according to the lawsuit.

The law firm was hired by U of M to investigate Moore and Shiver’s relationship. The university later expanded the investigation to include the athletic department.

The lawsuit also claims that Shiver requested copies of emails between Moore and athletic director Warde Manuel that contained the words “affair,” “discipline,” “pregnancy,” “baby” and “abortion.” The university denied the request, citing the communication between U of M employees as “exempt information,” according to the lawsuit.

However, Shiver’s legal team argued that the university has not shown evidence that the emails are exempt.

“This public university paid Jenner & Block $12 million to investigate the Sherrone Moore scandal and the abuse, Title IX and Title VII violations within the athletic department and Schembechler Hall, yet now refuses to release the investigation’s findings. It was important for our client to file this initial FOIA lawsuit to ensure the truth and facts come out,” Stroth said.

Advertisement

Shiver appeared on ABC News’ “Good Morning America” in April to discuss her relationship with Moore. In the interview, she said she became pregnant by Moore and sought an abortion after medical complications were discovered about the pregnancy.


Note: The video above previously aired on April 14, 2026.



Source link

Continue Reading

Michigan

‘Big Brother’ season 28 to premiere this week. One guest from Michigan

Published

on

‘Big Brother’ season 28 to premiere this week. One guest from Michigan


play

Doors will to the “Big Brother” house will open soon, as season 28 premieres this week — and the cast list includes one guest from northern Michigan.

At 8 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, “Big Brother” season 28 will premiere on CBS to introduce the new guests in a 90-minute episode.

Advertisement

“This season’s cast includes an MMA fighter, rocket scientist, game show host, daughter of an ’80s pop star, and a DRAG RACE All Star, among others,” CBS said in a July 7 announcement. “This new group of Houseguests is stepping into a summer where nothing is as it seems, where every twist rewrites the rules, and where time becomes the ultimate twist.”

There is one Michigan guest, Rome Seymour, 28, who works as a professional pickleball coach from Traverse City.

“I would describe myself as bashful, extroverted and extremely excitable. To be on ‘Big Brother’ is a dream. I’ve never felt anything as exiting as this before,” Seymour said in the “Big Brother” July 7 live cast announcement video.

Seymour said he will use his inner nerdiness to befriend and protect guests who are perhaps similar.

Advertisement

“I see myself as hero, but I think a lot of people in the house are going to see me as a villain just because I’m so competitive that I want to win,” Seymour said.

After the 14 guests were revealed by CBS, the cast was said to be joined by long-time “Survivor” contestant Rick Devens, according to a July 7 Entertainment Weekly article.

Here’s more on the cast and how to tune in this week:

What is ‘Big Brother’ about? What is the theme for season 28?

“Big Brother,” is a reality TV show that follows a group of people living in a large house surrounded by 112 cameras and 113 microphones as an unfiltered 24-hour live feed to capture every interaction, strategic move and challenge.

A guest will be voted off each week, and the last remaining guest will win the grand prize of $750,000, according to CBS.

Advertisement

The theme for season 28 is called, “Time Trip,” according to Sneak Peak from Paramount+.

Is anyone from Michigan on ‘Big Brother’ season 28?

Yes. There is one guest from Michigan on season 28 of “Big Brother:” Rome Seymour, 28, is a professional pickleball coach from Traverse City, located in the northwest Lower Peninsula.

Full ‘Big Brother’ season 28 cast list

Here is the full guest list for “Big Brother” season 28:

Advertisement
  • Rick Devens, 42: TV journalist and long-time “Survivor” contestant from Blacksburg, Virginia.
  • Jason De Puy, 35: Drag Queen and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” alum from San Francisco, California.
  • Ashley Trail, 24: Bartender from Alton, Illinois.
  • Barrett Pfeiffer, 27: Jumbotron Engineer from Benton, Arkansas.
  • Chuk Anyanwu, 27: Supply Chain Analyst from Dallas, Texas.
  • Drew Campbell, 22: Surgical Dental Assistant from Temecula, California.
  • Haley Thogmartin, 29: Telemedicine Executive from Neosho, Missouri.
  • Rome Seymour, 28: Pickleball Coach from Traverse City, Michigan.
  • Kamuela “Kamu” Kirk, 32: MMA Fighter from Phoenix, Arizona.
  • LaTrice Verrett, 57: Boutique Salesperson from Kankakee, Illinois.
  • Lyric Medeiros, 25: Attorney from Honolulu, Hawaii.
  • Mallory Aurichio, 24: Rocket Scientist from Township of Washington, New Jersey.
  • Melody Morris, 24: Corporate Game Show Host from Thornton, Colorado.
  • Taylor Brown, 27: Elementary School Counselor from Deerfield Beach, Florida.
  • Yash Patel, 24: Financial Analyst from Monroe Township, New Jersey.

What time does ‘Big Brother’ season 28 premiere?

The 90-minute “Big Brother” season 28 premiere is set to air at 8 p.m. ET on Thursday, July 9.

“Big Brother: Unlocked,” will air at 8 p.m. ET on Friday, July 10, and a 90-minute episode will air at 8 p.m. ET on Sunday, July 12.

Where can I stream the ‘Big Brother’ premiere this week?

“Big Brother” Season 28 will air on CBS and will be available on Paramount+ Premium, priced at $13.99 per month.

Paramount+ Essential subscribers will be able to catch the episode the day after it airs.

Following the season premiere this week, the series will air Wednesdays at 8 p.m. ET, followed by hour-long shows on Thursdays, featuring live evictions, and Sundays at 8 p.m. ET.

USA TODAY contributed.

Advertisement

Contact Sarah Moore @ smoore@lsj.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court rules rape admission invalid due to LSD use

Published

on

Michigan Supreme Court rules rape admission invalid due to LSD use


A man who took a large quantity of LSD before allegedly sexually assaulting his friend was too dazed to legally confess to the incident when deputies questioned him about it hours later, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 6-1 decision in which the dissenting justice agreed that the case should be retried, the high court sent the case against Zebadiah J. Soriano, 24, back to the trial.

Soriano’s attorney argued that not only was his client high on the hallucinogenic drug when he admitted to being a rapist after being read his Miranda rights, he also was sleep-deprived, hungry and unfamiliar with law enforcement procedures.

“Voluntary intoxication does not make a Miranda waiver per se invalid,” Justice Kimberly Thomas wrote in the opinion. ” … However, the circumstances here undermined Soriano’s ability to make a knowing and intelligent waiver.”

Advertisement

Defense attorney Ali Nathaniel Wright called the decision “a victory for Michiganders and our right to be protected from self-incrimination.”

“The decision serves as a reminder to our lower courts and law enforcement that confessions elicited from hospitalized teenagers who cannot fully appreciate their rights because they are intoxicated and sleep deprived have no place in a court of law,” Wright said in a statement.

‘I am a rapist’

Soriano was 18 years old on the night of Nov. 20, 2020, when he used LSD with a platonic friend, identified in court documents as “AC,” at her home in Grand Traverse County. Records show that Soriano had made romantic advances toward AC in the past, which she had rebuffed.

AC allegedly took one acid tablet while Soriano has claimed that he took six.

AC later told investigators that, a short time later, Soriano disrobed, forced himself on top of her and groped her, according to court documents. When she got away from him, Soriano allegedly caught her and put his arms around her throat. The alleged victim again was able to escape from Soriano, who eventually fell down a flight of stairs and ran out of the house.

Advertisement

Police were called to the scene and found Soriano around two hours after the alleged assault, in a wooded area about a quarter-mile from AC’s home, court documents show. He was acting strangely and making nonsensical statements, so officers transported him to a hospital, where they read him his Miranda rights before he made the incriminating statement that lies at the heart of the case:

“I am a rapist. I am f***ed,” he allegedly told a Grand Traverse sheriff’s deputy.

Convicted of criminal sexual conduct

Soriano was charged in Grand Traverse Circuit Court with assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving penetration, as well as assault by strangulation, records show.

Before his trial, Soriano filed a motion seeking to suppress the damning statement he made at the hospital, arguing that because he was high on LSD, he was unable to legally waive his constitutional right to remain silent.

The court denied the motion and, in September 2021, a jury convicted Soriano on the criminal sexual conduct charge while acquitting him of assault by strangulation. He was sentenced to three years of probation, six months in jail and ordered to register as a sex offender for life, according to court records.

Advertisement

The suspect later filed a motion seeking a new trial, arguing that his defense failed to support his motion to suppress with expert testimony, records show.

The trial court denied the motion and, in May 2024, an appeals court affirmed Soriano’s conviction in a 2-1 decision, opining that any alleged errors were harmless and unsupported.

“AC’s testimony, particularly when corroborated by other witness testimony, makes it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found defendant guilty absent any potential error in the admission of his statements made while in the hospital,” the Appeals Court judges wrote.

In September 2025, Soriano appealed the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court. Wright wrote in a brief that two hours after Soriano had been interrogated, a deputy told his parents that he was “too out of it” to speak to them.

“If Zebadiah was not sober enough to hold a basic conversation with his parents two hours after his interrogation, then he was not sober enough to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or give a voluntary confession,” Wright wrote. “The State should not be permitted to reap the benefits of (the deputy’s) exploitation of a vulnerable teenager.”

Advertisement

Too high to confess?

In a decision filed Tuesday, the Michigan Supreme sided with the defense.

Thomas, writing for the 6-1 majority in a 24-page opinion, said Soriano did not fully understand the rights he was giving up when he told law enforcement that he was a rapist.

“The short period of time between defendant’s erratic behaviors and being advised of his Miranda rights supports the conclusion that defendant was not able to understand his rights at the time of waiver,” Thomas wrote.

The high court also rejected the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that other evidence made the error harmless, determining that Soriano’s hospital statement was an important part of the prosecution’s effort to prove his intent.

“Given the other evidence concerning defendant’s intent, the average jury would have found the prosecution’s case significantly less persuasive without the erroneously admitted statement,” Thomas wrote.

Advertisement

The dissenting justice, Richard Bernstein, disagreed with his colleagues about the legal reason Soriano’s waiver was invalid, but agreed a new trial was warranted.

The ruling reverses the Appeals Court decision, vacates Soriano’s conviction and sends the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

mreinhart@detroitnews.com



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending