Attorneys for groups suing over Iowa’s fetal heartbeat abortion law agreed with the state on something in a hearing on Friday.
They do not want a third group to join their lawsuit.
The law, which is on hold for now, says a doctor cannot perform an abortion if a heartbeat is detected.
An anti-abortion group is opposing the law for a very different reason than the two groups suing to block it.
Rebecca Kiessling, the founder of Save the 1, says, “My birth mother was abducted at knife-point by a serial rapist, she went to two illegal abortions prior to roe vs wade, exactly four years before roe vs wade and she would have aborted me if it had been legal, she told me that; and yet, she loves me.”
Rebecca Kiessling says that unborn children of rape or incest should be considered a “people group” and the clause which grants an exception for abortions in cases of rape or incest is discriminatory and violates equal protection under the law.
Kiessling says, “I have been called all sorts of things, monstrous child, horrible reminder which is a myth, rapist’s child, not rape victim’s child, rapist’s child and on and on and on. The mothers are discriminated against and we deserve to have our day in court.”
The ACLU’s legal director, Rita Betties Austen says the notion that unborn children of rape or incest are a people group is unfounded.
“This effort to shame women about their reasons for why they would make a decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is unfortunate and it’s part of a larger effort to ban abortion outright, so let’s not mistake it for anything other than that,” says, Austen.
Meanwhile planned parenthood argues that while courts can strike down or up hold certain parts of a bill. It can’t go so far as to change the intended meaning of the bill.
“And here save the 1 has acknowledged that this court would actually be overriding legislative intent if it upheld the law and struck down the exceptions,” says Alice Clapman, attorney for planned parenthood.
The attorney general’s office also argued against the motion. As did the Thomas More society, which is representing the state at no cost to defend the bill as is.
In court proceedings today, save the one disclosed that the Thomas More society represented them in the past and attorneys for Thomas More say the conflict of interest could cause them to step aside.
“We got in this to spare the state from the business of defending the bill itself, and if intervention is allowed the state is just going to wind up in it wholesale anyway,” says Martin cannon, attorney for the Thomas More Society.