Arguments in a legal challenge brought by an abortion rights group in Michigan began Thursday as the group looks to eliminate some of the state’s remaining restrictions. 

The plaintiffs have argued that some state laws restricting abortion are no longer constitutional after voters approved a measure to enshrine the right to an abortion in the Michigan Constitution in 2022. The laws in question are currently blocked by a preliminary ruling from Judge Sima Patel.

The group is asking Patel to look into the state’s “informed consent” and 24-hour waiting period laws and if they violate the Michigan Right to Reproductive Freedom amendment.

In 2022, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) and the state legislature repealed many abortion restrictions after Democrats won a trifecta in the Michigan state government. 

Some restrictions remain, however, including the “informed consent” and 24-hour waiting period. These laws require patients to wait 24 hours to get an abortion after signing a written consent form. Patients are also required to view images of fetuses at different gestational stages.

Patel’s previous ruling, which blocked the laws, said the constitutional amendment likely made these abortion restrictions unconstitutional because they likely infringe on residents’ ability to make decisions about their reproductive healthcare.

The lawsuit was filed last year by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers, a group of abortion providers based in the Detroit area. Renee Chelian, the executive director of Northland Family Planning Centers, took the stand first in the trial, testifying that the waiting period creates barriers to access to abortion.

“It’s biased. It’s unnecessary. It burdens the patient,” she said. “There’s no reason for it.”

Chelian additionally said the laws are coercive, noting they can be especially hard on patients in crisis, who could be having an abortion for medical reasons.

“That fetal anomaly patient — do you think she wants information about parenting or prenatal care or any other alternatives?” she said. “No. She wants to have that baby, and she can’t.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is a named defendant in the case. Assistant Attorney General Kendell Asbenson, who led the cross-examination for the defense, asked Chelian if the informed consent laws created “a burden” for patients.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“There’s no other medical procedure done in this state where the patient is required to look at alternatives to the procedure they’re going to have,” she replied.

The trial is expected to continue Friday. Patel will rule on the case once it reaches its conclusion.