When a judge this week blocked the enforcement of a law that banned abortions at about six weeks in Iowa, he left in place one provision of the law that directs the state Board of Medicine to create rules to enforce it.
The law faces a long legal battle, and if it ends up taking effect permanently, District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin reasoned in his ruling on Monday, it would be best for all involved if there were clear rules to enforce the law.
Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the law last week after the Republican-led Iowa Legislature passed the bill in a special session on July 11.
The law states that it should not be construed to impose civil or criminal penalties on a woman who receives an abortion. Republican leaders also said last week the Board of Medicine has no authority to impose criminal penalties on physicians, and would only be considering civil discipline.
Existing administrative rules lay out the extent of the punishment the Board of Medicine can impose on physicians and licensees that violate board rules and state laws.
The board may revoke, suspend or restrict someone’s license, or place them on a probation period or require additional education or training. The board also may impose a civil fine up to $10,000 and a written citation and warning.
A spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Inspection, Appeals and Licensing — which oversees the Board of Medicine — said the board would begin the process of making the rules during its next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept. 14.
“The Board of Medicine will begin considering rules to implement House File 732 at its next regularly-scheduled (in-person) board meeting,” department spokesperson Stefanie Bond said in an email. “The Board will proceed with the adoption of any rules in accordance with the processes set forth in Iowa Code Chapter 17A and Executive Order 10, including publication in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin.”
Meanwhile, Reynolds said this week she would direct the Attorney General’s Office to appeal the court decision that temporarily blocked the law. It is largely expected the court battle will end up before the state Supreme Court, which may then decide which legal standard abortion laws are subject to and whether the law is constitutional.
Newsletter Signup
Legislative & Politics News Delivered to your inbox each weekday
Iowa law requires state agencies to submit a notice that they intend to make a new rule at least 35 days before they take the action. That notice will include the terms of the rules and opportunities for members of the public to comment on the proposed rules.
The rules then go before the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee, which votes to approve or reject the proposal.
Rep. Megan Jones, a Republican from Sioux Rapids and the chair of the rules committee, said committee members are focused only on whether the rules comply with the Legislature’s intent in the law. The review is not for debating the law again.
“Our purpose is not to overhaul legislation in that committee,” Jones said. “We just need to make sure that the rules comply with the law.”
Once the committee approves the initial proposal, the board may make changes to the wording based on feedback, and can then adopt the rules. Then, the committee must approve them a second time, and the rules go into effect 35 days after the final review.
There are opportunities for members of the public and experts to submit comments and feedback on the proposal throughout the process.
There are also multiple ways to speed up the process, but those methods require approval from the governor’s office and the rules committee.
One open question, Jones said, is how the rules can be written without taking effect until the injunction is lifted, if it is ultimately lifted.
Jack Ewing, the state’s administrative code editor, said he is unsure how the rules will be affected by the fact that the law is blocked from taking effect.
“I’ve never encountered a situation like what was contemplated in that district court decision, whereby there's a law enjoined but the ruling specifically says they can do rules,” he said. “ … It sort of seems to suggest by allowing that rule making provision to go forward that the rule making process can be carried out and completed and the rules actually made even while the injunction is in place.”
Bond did not respond to a request for comment on whether the rules will be delayed until the injunction is lifted.
Reynolds earlier this year signed Executive Order 10, which placed a moratorium on new administrative rules and directed state agencies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of their rules.
The new rules being contemplated would fall under an exception to Executive Order 10, which allows rule making to comply with the requirements of a state law, a spokesperson for Reynolds’ office said.
When lawmakers were debating the bill last week, Democrats argued it did not have clear standards for health care providers to follow and that the language included was vague and not scientifically accurate.
Sen. Cindy Winckler, a Democrat from Davenport who serves on the Administrative Rules Review Committee, said she hopes the board’s rules offer clearer distinction of the medical terms being used in the bill.
The bill uses the term “fetal heartbeat,” defining it as “steady and repetitive rhythmic contractions of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.”
But medical professionals contend the sound heard in an ultrasound that early in the pregnancy — as early as six weeks — is not a heartbeat. The chambers of the heart are not developed at that stage, according to a letter sent by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to Iowa lawmakers.
“I will be looking for some clear distinction,” Wincker said of the rule making process. “ … Part of the (ACOG) letter also identified that it interfered with the patient-doctor relationship. So I’m hoping that we have a similar process from the Board of Medicine that supports best practice for gynecologists and obstetricians.”
www.thegazette.com
The law faces a long legal battle, and if it ends up taking effect permanently, District Court Judge Joseph Seidlin reasoned in his ruling on Monday, it would be best for all involved if there were clear rules to enforce the law.
Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the law last week after the Republican-led Iowa Legislature passed the bill in a special session on July 11.
The law states that it should not be construed to impose civil or criminal penalties on a woman who receives an abortion. Republican leaders also said last week the Board of Medicine has no authority to impose criminal penalties on physicians, and would only be considering civil discipline.
Existing administrative rules lay out the extent of the punishment the Board of Medicine can impose on physicians and licensees that violate board rules and state laws.
The board may revoke, suspend or restrict someone’s license, or place them on a probation period or require additional education or training. The board also may impose a civil fine up to $10,000 and a written citation and warning.
A spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Inspection, Appeals and Licensing — which oversees the Board of Medicine — said the board would begin the process of making the rules during its next meeting, which is scheduled for Sept. 14.
“The Board of Medicine will begin considering rules to implement House File 732 at its next regularly-scheduled (in-person) board meeting,” department spokesperson Stefanie Bond said in an email. “The Board will proceed with the adoption of any rules in accordance with the processes set forth in Iowa Code Chapter 17A and Executive Order 10, including publication in the Iowa Administrative Bulletin.”
Meanwhile, Reynolds said this week she would direct the Attorney General’s Office to appeal the court decision that temporarily blocked the law. It is largely expected the court battle will end up before the state Supreme Court, which may then decide which legal standard abortion laws are subject to and whether the law is constitutional.
How does the rule making process work?
On Iowa Politics
Newsletter Signup
Iowa law requires state agencies to submit a notice that they intend to make a new rule at least 35 days before they take the action. That notice will include the terms of the rules and opportunities for members of the public to comment on the proposed rules.
The rules then go before the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee, which votes to approve or reject the proposal.
Rep. Megan Jones, a Republican from Sioux Rapids and the chair of the rules committee, said committee members are focused only on whether the rules comply with the Legislature’s intent in the law. The review is not for debating the law again.
“Our purpose is not to overhaul legislation in that committee,” Jones said. “We just need to make sure that the rules comply with the law.”
Once the committee approves the initial proposal, the board may make changes to the wording based on feedback, and can then adopt the rules. Then, the committee must approve them a second time, and the rules go into effect 35 days after the final review.
There are opportunities for members of the public and experts to submit comments and feedback on the proposal throughout the process.
There are also multiple ways to speed up the process, but those methods require approval from the governor’s office and the rules committee.
One open question, Jones said, is how the rules can be written without taking effect until the injunction is lifted, if it is ultimately lifted.
Jack Ewing, the state’s administrative code editor, said he is unsure how the rules will be affected by the fact that the law is blocked from taking effect.
“I’ve never encountered a situation like what was contemplated in that district court decision, whereby there's a law enjoined but the ruling specifically says they can do rules,” he said. “ … It sort of seems to suggest by allowing that rule making provision to go forward that the rule making process can be carried out and completed and the rules actually made even while the injunction is in place.”
Bond did not respond to a request for comment on whether the rules will be delayed until the injunction is lifted.
Reynolds earlier this year signed Executive Order 10, which placed a moratorium on new administrative rules and directed state agencies to conduct a comprehensive analysis of their rules.
The new rules being contemplated would fall under an exception to Executive Order 10, which allows rule making to comply with the requirements of a state law, a spokesperson for Reynolds’ office said.
Rules may provide clearer guidance
When lawmakers were debating the bill last week, Democrats argued it did not have clear standards for health care providers to follow and that the language included was vague and not scientifically accurate.
Sen. Cindy Winckler, a Democrat from Davenport who serves on the Administrative Rules Review Committee, said she hopes the board’s rules offer clearer distinction of the medical terms being used in the bill.
The bill uses the term “fetal heartbeat,” defining it as “steady and repetitive rhythmic contractions of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.”
But medical professionals contend the sound heard in an ultrasound that early in the pregnancy — as early as six weeks — is not a heartbeat. The chambers of the heart are not developed at that stage, according to a letter sent by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to Iowa lawmakers.
“I will be looking for some clear distinction,” Wincker said of the rule making process. “ … Part of the (ACOG) letter also identified that it interfered with the patient-doctor relationship. So I’m hoping that we have a similar process from the Board of Medicine that supports best practice for gynecologists and obstetricians.”
Iowa board will write rules for six-week abortion ban, even as law remains blocked
Even though a judge’s ruling this week blocked enforcement of a new abortion law in Iowa, the process that will draft rules for the law’s implementation will continue.
www.thegazette.com
