The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld a bill Friday banning most abortions past 12 weeks of pregnancy and restricting gender-affirming care for minors.
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland had argued the bill violated the Nebraska constitution’s single-subject rule by combining regulations on abortions and gender care in one bill. ACLU of Nebraska provided legal representation for the group.
The constitution requires a bill to only contain one subject and for the subject to be expressed clearly in the bill’s title.
In its majority opinion, the court ruled that the bill passes the single subject requirement through its “public health and welfare” subject, and that its provisions are germane to its subject.
“LB574 does regulate both abortion and gender-altering care,” the opinion reads. “But both abortion and gender-altering care are medical procedures and LB574 prescribes rules that define if and when such procedures can be performed.”
Governor Jim Pillen praised the court’s decision, saying in a statement the court was “upholding these important protections for life and children in Nebraska.”
Adam Schwend, a regional director with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, called the affirmation from the court a “victory for Nebraska’s unborn children and their mothers.”
The legislature approved LB574 in 2023, limiting abortions past 12 weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest or medical emergencies. The bill also restricted puberty blockers, other hormone treatments and surgeries for Nebraska minors under 19 seeking gender affirming care.
Planned Parenthood North Central States chief executive officer Ruth Richardson said the policies have impacted Nebraskan’s lives.
“It is nothing short of heart-wrenching and infuriating to know that Nebraskans will continue to be denied the say they deserve in what should be private medical decisions,” Richardson said in a statement. “We remain dedicated to helping our patients in Nebraska access the care they so desperately need, even if it means having to travel out of state.”
Justice Lindsay Miller-Lerman issued a partial dissent in the ruling.
“I do not believe that abortion and gender-affirming care comprise ‘one subject,’” she wrote in her dissent. She added that the court had missed an opportunity to clarify confusion in one-subject bills from the legislature.
"The majority has recognized the inconsistencies, nevertheless again missed an opportunity to clarify the applicable law."
Miller-Lerman also disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that LB574 primarily regulated medical care providers and only indirectly affects others.
“The subject the court inappropriately created overlooks the real world prohibitions on the receipt of medical care,” she wrote. “It is not candid to say LB574 regulates health care but does not impact patients. What about the children? What about the parents? And remember the ladies.”