[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6580879,"mediaKeyId","3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3","parentId",3082052,"title","Bioethicist testifies Michigan’s 24‑hour wait, coercion screen and disclosures are consistent with informed consent","audioSeconds",3234,"startMs",5847000,"endMs",9081000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3&start=5847&end=9081","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3/thumbnail_5847000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6580879/Michigan/Bioethicist-testifies-Michigans-24hour-wait-coercion-screen-and-disclosures-are-consistent-with-informed-consent","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580879-d4e1ffddfc5a757d03cf42f112ac4080/orig.mp4?Expires=1770881843&Signature=RgRUVneG2txXgqzqVcmekrbdskd0YPKge--eXgWywXrRVn50rQhtLF3j7d-7Tfq4iiyRm~qPdQ7QhsvAcD4ZRy2KJwy6Ws~XWC7br32ArsXRVUBlXQ~zpHihalfgx0LVdQ4bsbnEeayPSRG~N0K90gyOBKfPk183bcS4XW7~UFkIGUYvG7AURN0EM84YAzObs7aNKmIQ962rnyaecGO1kIJNiE9PbAwm7Z~StCo~0YljyBMy~PfM17TbIyrTsyIWNdtOxNbK06CfAe7HBWqitnm3ERt9HRoiK76cDTzrKU6rjK4ZV7z1l7gwL4mny5GV3cxBKOM4CsokIZ0hFfUl9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-22T17:45:58.503Z","article","Dr. Farr Curlin, a Duke University physician and bioethicist called as an expert by defendants, testified the Michigan statutes requiring a 24‑hour waiting period, coercion screening and statutorily prescribed disclosure materials are compatible with accepted norms of informed consent.

Curlin, qualified by the court as an expert in bioethics and informed consent (the court did not accept a broader qualification in medicine), told the judge and counsel he relied on his clinical experience, published medical‑ethics literature and review of materials supplied in the case, including the MDHHS informational packet.

On the 24‑hour waiting period: Curlin said a waiting period is not “magical” but is consistent with practices across medicine that give patients time to consider information before making irreversible choices. He told the court the period imposes some burdens — for example, return visits — but said those burdens are of a kind that can be ethically justified to protect a patient’s opportunity to make a considered, voluntary choice. He also said shorter periods such as 18 hours can provide similar benefits and that exceptions for urgent medical conditions are appropriate.

On MDHHS disclosures and fetal gestational images: Curlin said, based on the materials he reviewed in the binder provided by the state, that the MDHHS handout appeared “even‑handed” and scientifically grounded. He said he did not find language that he would describe as stigmatizing or as pressuring patients to continue a pregnancy, and that the development chart appeared reasonably accurate (he noted that he is not an embryologist).

On coercion screening and the physician requirement: Curlin described a requirement to screen for coercion as “reasonable” and consistent with protecting voluntariness — a core component of informed consent. He also testified that limiting abortion provision to physicians (rather than advanced practice clinicians) is consistent with state authority to set qualifications and may protect patients by ensuring those offering care have training to manage rare but serious complications.

Compensation and background: On the record Curlin said he charges $500 an hour and had billed approximately $21,000 for his work on this matter. He described his background as an internal medicine physician and hospice/palliative medicine specialist who teaches and researches clinical medical ethics and the intersection of medicine and religion.

Why it matters: Curlin’s testimony provides an ethical foundation for defendant‑state regulations, tying the statutory requirements to widely recognized informed‑consent principles (information, comprehension, voluntariness). That testimony will be part of the record the court uses in its forthcoming findings of fact and conclusions of law.

What the court ruled on qualification and scope: The court allowed Curlin to testify as an expert in bioethics and informed consent but limited (over an objection) any qualification presented as a general medical expert. Counsel for plaintiffs cross‑examined Curlin on his views about ACOG, whether he had clinical experience obtaining consent for abortion, and on his personal religious commitments; Curlin denied that his personal religious convictions biased his professional opinions in this case.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Court of Claims 24-00001MM Northland Family Planning Center v Nessel","oneSentenceSummary","Duke bioethicist Dr. Farr Curlin testified that Michigan's statutorily required 24‑hour waiting period, coercion screening, and MDHHS disclosure materials align with established norms of informed consent and do not appear stigmatizing in the materials he reviewed.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan","taxId",74552,"location","Michigan","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6580884,"Expert witness testifies abortion causes harms to women and calls it 'murder'; testimony partially stricken",200,850000,1050000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3&start=850&end=1050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3/thumbnail_850000.jpg","/articles/6580884/Michigan/Expert-witness-testifies-abortion-causes-harms-to-women-and-calls-it-murder-testimony-partially-stricken","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580884-0e1aa86b763f311868265b57868ed4ca/orig.mp4?Expires=1770881843&Signature=eSTB3Mwe9ddVCfc1LukBPVqL6ogvNi5EFvZ3TFtv58UI~QrnG-DPRjwkqtH7L5XmGzL0sT~CFG8oYckvZIpRb03uML8~a-RJi4zx1YXYSlWREc8oiwdoZnQLFVJbjOAZ0dTfecF76XeXrHMAcgjhEQOxt7ZPsX2xqd3~-XZsntqihjgHZyZTP3foS-DMJBajSvIa28wk9Wi~YF3AiXPiLvFwZOteZ~TL-aoRMhKDiz9oKcLzhvDcMN1wDQEqQSrbsTbcf1Vy2p5Cvt3Okt~0aL-hGnqohZsL-IwObkA7b44asKx3XpV7nxH169P1cMY9xe9G3NAH4lkq0SvbmBn5Bw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Dr. Rubenhorst, testifying as an expert for the plaintiffs in Northland Family Planning Center v. Dana Nessel, told the court she believes abortion “defined as intentional feticide” has no benefits to women and that physicians who perform abortions have, in her view, killed a human being.

Under cross‑examination, counsel asked whether the witness believed physicians who perform abortions “have committed murder.” The witness replied she had “considered” that they had, clarifying she meant from the standpoint that she believes the fetus is a human being and that the action kills that human being, and she did not claim to know the fine legal distinctions among homicide, murder and manslaughter.

The cross‑examination elicited additional contested material. Counsel for intervening defendants and other parties later conferred about which portions of the expert’s testimony would remain in the public transcript; the parties agreed on limited page‑and‑line ranges to strike (see separate procedural article). The court also allowed cross‑examination for impeachment and asked that the redaction disputes be briefed in writing for any further relief.

Key points from the testimony and cross examination

- On literature and published work: the witness acknowledged relying on and citing a number of studies in her reports and articles, including work by David Reardon. She described how she conducts literature reviews and estimated reviewing dozens to hundreds of articles for expert work.

- On clinicians who perform abortions: Rubenhorst said her experience and conversations with colleagues suggested many physicians who initially intended to practice abortion stopped within several years; she characterized this as a “nuanced” effect but stated she had cited research supporting attrition in abortion practice after residency.

- On legal and moral labels: when asked whether abortion should be considered health care, the witness said she does not believe abortion should be called health care; she acknowledged Michigan law defines abortion as health care and states abortion is a human right, and said she worked within that statutory framework for the purposes of her deposition and testimony.

Why it matters: The expert’s candid moral views and the use of strong language during cross examination prompted immediate disputes about the trial record and which portions of testimony should be available in the public transcript. Those redaction requests are being briefed on an expedited schedule and could affect appellate review.

What was not established in court: The witness stated moral positions and referred to literature she relied on, but the court did not adopt any factual finding about the validity of the cited studies while on the record. Portions of the testimony are the subject of negotiated redactions and potential future motions.

Attribution note: Quotations in this article come from on‑the‑record examination and cross‑examination of the witness during the trial.","Plaintiff expert Dr. Rubenhorst testified that she views abortion as intentional feticide with no benefits and said physicians who perform abortions have 'committed murder' (as she framed the view), testimony that opponents moved to strike in part and which the parties partly agreed to remove from the public transcript.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6580890,"Parties agree to strike portions of expert transcript; court sets filing schedule",1788,444000,2232000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3&start=444&end=2232","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3082052-233352c003361805854ec6920ec1e2d3/thumbnail_444000.jpg","/articles/6580890/Michigan/Parties-agree-to-strike-portions-of-expert-transcript-court-sets-filing-schedule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580890-2ad83b3d47abe2d2940fc735fbd2ce27/orig.mp4?Expires=1770881843&Signature=hJQADunTJP14tOMGD2PmJATqxbdvt0zhusAWF9Fxgv0JucMY4vrAETrfOsWubWvV3RYXORTDYV-7~r~DZQ1L5JiW8mVmRj0FUVo0izMd0qmywrusw~tKJU6HxUSWUw2eT9K~zTmglrZdAAk5lxzp1gq~xg9tVulEikk9PKp~O7LrUhdGawoezB3HsOPJ~jLNpfaveOnWMKD0YG4AhDtTw1pKemm6rNmBvNTpnOV3LUC1i4-W2TLNah-jSuQZrIVo~K4okpUOAygc9ldBHNhBNmFPjwFcgQ2lUOzr0YWVLBXJ2Z~JU6p1tsN~DyvQAf8gd0O3TNEOAWnEaqxDCMLY7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court and counsel in Northland Family Planning Center v. Dana Nessel on the record agreed to strike specific passages from expert testimony and set a filing schedule for any further disputes over redactions.

The agreement, announced in open court, covered portions of testimony by plaintiff expert Dr. Rubenhorst. Counsel told the judge the parties had conferred and “are in agreement on a portion of the testimony that can be stricken from the transcript,” and provided page and line ranges to be removed from the public record.

The parties said they still intended to preserve appellate arguments but would not oppose the limited in‑court stipulation. Judge: the court confirmed the stipulation on the record and asked counsel for any additional requests regarding redactions. Christopher Braverman, counsel for Director Marlon Brown, asked the court to strike an additional portion (beginning at page 125, line 2, up to the first portion the parties had already stipulated to), and the judge ordered Braverman to submit a short written motion appending the contested pages so the court could rule with full briefing.

The court set the following interim deadlines on the record: the moving party will file its motion “as soon as possible,” with a proposed deadline of end of day the next business day; opposing responses may be due by the end of the following business day (the court later clarified a response deadline through end of day Monday), and the court said it would issue an order thereafter. Counsel additionally confirmed they would preserve appellate rights regarding any exclusions.

Separately, at the close of proofs the court set a schedule for post‑trial filings: instead of closing arguments, the court directed parties to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. The judge set an initial target two weeks out but granted the parties 21 days from receipt of the final trial transcript to file those submissions.

Why it matters: The specific portions of expert testimony that remain in the record may affect appellate review. The court’s direction that disputes over further redactions be briefed in writing creates a documented basis for the judge’s future order and preserves the parties’ ability to seek review.

Next steps: Counsel for Director Brown must file the requested written motion with the attached contested pages; any responses must follow the schedule announced on the record.","During the Northland Family Planning Center v. Dana Nessel trial, parties agreed on limited redactions to an expert witness transcript and the court directed further written motions and set deadlines for filings and later briefing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bioethicist testifies Michigan’s 24‑hour wait, coercion screen and disclosures are consistent with informed consent

Expert witness testifies abortion causes harms to women and calls it 'murder'; testimony partially stricken

Parties agree to strike portions of expert transcript; court sets filing schedule