Even after a major legal victory for abortion rights in Michigan, one stigmatizing barrier remains—and Attorney General Dana Nessel is fighting to take it down.
In a year full of losses for reproductive rights, last month brought some good news out of Michigan: On May 13, a Michigan court sided with the Northland Family Planning Centers clinic, which sued the state, arguing that Michigan’s abortion restrictions made it unnecessarily cumbersome for patients to access care.
The Michigan Court of Claims struck down three major abortion restrictions in May’s decision … but left a fourth requirement forcing abortion providers to screen patients for abortion “coercion,” which creates another delay before a patient can receive care. On Tuesday, June 3, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a motion challenging the court’s decision to retain this final abortion restriction even after getting rid of the others.
Last month’s ruling striking down three restrictions was a major step forward for reproductive rights in Michigan. Even though Michigan voters approved the Reproductive Freedom for All Act (RFFA) in the November 2022 midterm election—just a few months after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision struck down Roe v. Wade—some key restrictions stayed in place, including a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before patients can access abortion care.
Because of Michigan voters’ clear support of abortion rights, the Michigan Legislature repealed some requirements in 2023, but more still remained. In February 2024, the Center for Reproductive Rights—with clients Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice—introduced the lawsuit Northland Family Planning Centers v. Michigan, which sued over these three state requirements:
- A law that forced doctors and clinicians to provide patients with biased, inaccurate and stigmatizing counseling materials before an abortion.
- A mandatory minimum 24-hour waiting period between patients receiving the counseling materials and being able to access care.
- A law preventing qualified advance practice clinicians (APCs) from providing abortion care, even though APCs were allowed to provide the same medications and procedures for patients going through early miscarriages. Repealing this law allows physician assistants and nurse practitioners, not just physicians, to perform abortions.
In their lawsuit, the Center for Reproductive Rights argued that these restrictions imposed medically unnecessary obstacles to patients who need abortion care, singling out abortions for restrictions that the state didn’t apply to any other kind of medical procedure. The Center also explained that the restrictive laws discriminated against Michigan residents who already faced health inequities, including women from BIPOC, low-income and rural communities who might already have limited access to the money and travel time required for multiple clinic visits.
In her official capacity as state attorney general, Nessel was named a defendant in the case, also known as Northland v. Nessel. However, Nessel filed a brief three weeks after the case was filed, arguing that the abortion restrictions likely violated RFFA and agreeing that the court should temporarily block them before the official decision.
In her filing on April 4, Nessel argued that the abortion restrictions were discriminatory, since patients suffering miscarriages or planning to continue a pregnancy are not required to receive counseling materials or wait 24 hours before receiving care.
In her May 13 ruling, Judge Sima Patel agreed with the plaintiffs that the restrictions contradicted the reproductive freedom that Michiganders already voted for in 2022 with PFFA.
“The mandatory delay exacerbates the burdens that patients experience seeking abortion care, including by increasing costs, prolonging wait times, increasing the risk that a patient will have to disclose their decision to others, and potentially forcing the patient to forgo a medication abortion for a more invasive procedure,” Patel said about the repeal of the 24-hour waiting period.
After Patel’s initial ruling, Northland Family Planning Centers’ executive director Renee Chelian said, “It’s about time that these unnecessary and stigmatizing barriers to care are finally thrown out for good. Our patients no longer have to worry that they may not be able to get the time-sensitive care they need.”
The ‘Coercion’ Requirement
Even though the end of these three requirements has opened the door for more equitable abortion access in Michigan, Judge Patel kept the fourth restriction limiting patients’ access to care. This restriction requires abortion providers to screen patients for “coercion” and post notices stating that it’s illegal to pressure someone into having an abortion—steps that many advocates agree are time-consuming, stigmatizing and unnecessary.
Antiabortion extremists have been using the threat of abortion “coercion” as a talking point for years, but it’s actually far more common for abusers (think: controlling partners or staff at a fake clinic/crisis pregnancy center) to force a woman to keep a pregnancy when she wants an abortion.
As with the other restrictions that the court already struck down, Nessel argued that requiring doctors to speak with patients to verify they’re not being coerced into an abortion before they receive care is discriminatory. Patients continuing a pregnancy in Michigan aren’t required to go through a screening to make sure they’re not being pressured into keeping the baby, nor are patients receiving miscarriage care.
In a statement from her office, Nessel wrote, “Women wishing to continue their pregnancy, those seeking management for a miscarriage, and men pursuing a vasectomy all may do so without this level of state interference. Michigan residents and their healthcare providers deserve the same freedom when it comes to the deeply personal decision to have an abortion.”
If Patel refuses to remove the coercion screening requirement, the case could head to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court.
One Final Restriction
Although it wasn’t included in the Northland case, it’s important to note that Michigan has also kept a law requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. Under the law, which went into effect in 1993, anyone under 18 must have the consent of a parent or legal guardian or permission from a judge in order to obtain abortion care.
Advocates have argued that this law is harmful and pointed out the many hurdles that the parental consent rule can create for teenagers who need an abortion. Teenagers already have limited resources and may not have access to money or a car to obtain abortion care. Meanwhile, the parental consent requirement can create problems for teens in the foster care system who don’t have parents to give their consent. Petitioning for a judicial waiver of the state’s parental consent requirement, a process called “judicial bypass,” is complicated, time-consuming and difficult to navigate for young people.
According to Michigan attorney Kylee Sunderlin, quoted in a report from Human Rights Watch, “The hypocrisy of the law is the notion that someone is not mature enough to make this decision on their own, but they are mature enough to carry a pregnancy to term.”
Numerous other states, including Georgia, Kansas and Florida, require consent from one or both parents before allowing a minor an abortion.
Although Michigan’s ruling from May significantly increases access to abortion in the state—and this access will only improve if Nessel succeeds in asking the court to strike down the fourth requirement—the parental consent requirement will still remain as a barrier to abortion access in Michigan.
