A Michigan court just cleared the path for broader reproductive access by permanently blocking three of the state’s lingering abortion restrictions: the 24-hour mandatory waiting period, the state-required informed consent paperwork, and the physician-only rule that barred advanced practice clinicians from performing abortions. Judge Sima G. Patel of the Michigan Court of Claims ruled that all three violate the state’s Reproductive Freedom for All amendment—an amendment approved by voters in 2022 that now serves as Michigan’s strongest legal safeguard for reproductive care.
These weren’t minor rules. These restrictions have caused women to lose access to care, pushed patients beyond safe procedural windows, and blocked providers who are medically qualified but legally restricted. That includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, many of whom are the only consistent providers in rural and under-resourced areas. For hundreds each month, the issue wasn’t medical—it was bureaucracy. And bureaucracy became the barrier to care.
The 24-hour waiting period, tied directly to a mandated informed consent form, forced patients to navigate a tightly regulated window where the state—not the doctor, not the patient—controlled when care could happen. That consent form wasn’t just a signature—it had to be accessed from a state-run website, completed no more than two weeks but no less than 24 hours before the appointment, printed out, and brought in hand. Miss one of those steps? No abortion.
Renee Chelian, executive director of Northland Family Planning Centers, brought this reality into the courtroom. Her organization, alongside Medical Students for Choice and the Center for Reproductive Rights, filed the lawsuit that led to this ruling. Chelian estimated that at least 150 people a month missed appointments due to consent form errors or timing issues. Ten of those, each month, were outright turned away. One patient, Chelian testified, came in at 23.6 weeks pregnant—just under Michigan’s legal limit—but was denied care because she hadn’t printed the required paperwork. By the next day, it was too late. That patient had to leave the state.
Judge Patel’s ruling confirmed that these restrictions were not neutral. They added cost, stress, and risk—especially for patients traveling from out of state, who had limited time and resources to begin with. The 24-hour delay alone forced some into more invasive procedures, stripping them of the option for a medication abortion, which is only available during the first 11 weeks. Forcing patients into a later-stage procedure simply because of red tape is not care—it’s harm.
The court also took issue with the materials patients were required to read, which included state-selected information on contraception, fetal development, and abortion procedures. The judge called the content “coercive and stigmatizing.” This ruling didn’t just remove a delay; it addressed the emotional manipulation embedded in the process.
The ban on advanced practice clinicians performing abortions also fell under scrutiny. The state had required that only licensed physicians could provide abortion services, even though nurse practitioners and physician assistants are already trained to do so. Judge Patel found the rule “arbitrarily limits abortion providers to physicians only” and contributes to provider shortages across Michigan. That’s not just a logistical concern. It’s an access issue—especially for areas outside major cities, where OB-GYNs aren’t always available, but NPs and PAs are often the backbone of care.
On that point, this decision has a broader implication: it affirms that reproductive freedom is not theoretical—it must be functional. Laws that technically allow abortion, but make it harder to get, violate the very amendment voters passed to expand those rights.
This amendment, the Reproductive Freedom for All (RFFA), changed Michigan’s constitution to enshrine reproductive rights. But as this case showed, having constitutional protection and being able to use it are two different things. Efforts to repeal these restrictions through legislation had stalled, even with Democrats holding the Governor’s office and majorities in both chambers. The courts became the necessary route—and now, the precedent is set.
Not every law challenged in the case was overturned. The court upheld Michigan’s law requiring abortion providers to screen patients for coercion. Clinics also must continue posting signs stating that coercing someone into an abortion is illegal. But the judge made clear that this requirement does not burden a patient’s access to care. There’s no specific script, no mandatory checklist—providers can engage in conversation organically and protect patients without violating their rights.
This balance—the elimination of burdensome barriers, while maintaining space for patient safety—is what the court found consistent with the RFFA amendment. It’s also where advocates say the future of reproductive justice is heading: real access, real options, without judgment or unnecessary hoops.
Not everyone agrees. Genevieve Marnon of Right to Life of Michigan said in a statement that the ruling is “bad news for women.” She argued that the removal of standardized consent information strips away patient protections and called the decision “radical.” She also pointed to a rise in reported abortion complications. In 2023, state data showed 5.1 immediate complications for every 10,000 abortions performed. Between 2020 and 2022, that number was lower—1.6 per 10,000. But even the higher rate is significantly lower than complications from childbirth. And as of 2024, Michigan no longer requires abortion providers to report complication data to the state, so future transparency may be limited.
That doesn’t change the fact that these rules caused real harm. Chelian’s clinic didn’t just see the numbers. They saw the people. And for her, the ruling is long overdue. “Our patients no longer have to worry that they may not be able to get the time-sensitive care they need,” she said. “These restrictions are an insult to our patients, who know what’s best for themselves.”
The court’s ruling speaks to a deeper reality—what does it mean for a right to be real? A right that you have to print off a government website, within a precise timeframe, and physically bring to a provider, isn’t about your health. It’s about control.
Michigan voters said no to that control when they passed the RFFA amendment. But implementation required more than a ballot—it required testimony, lawsuits, organizing, and judges willing to interpret the law with the fullness of its promise.
This moment lands heavy for Detroit and Black communities across the state, where access to healthcare already lives on uneven ground. The barriers these laws created weren’t felt equally. They hit hardest where time, money, and access are already in short supply. Striking them down is more than a policy change—it’s a step toward equity.
As other states move through similar battles, Michigan’s ruling adds momentum. It’s a message to lawmakers and judges alike: rights must be accessible, not just aspirational. Reproductive care can’t exist behind digital hurdles, outdated consent forms, or unnecessary provider restrictions.
About Post Author
