Iowa’s newest abortion law — which was put on hold almost as soon as it was signed — has those on both sides of the abortion debate miffed.

The law went into effect Jan. 1. It requires that a doctor scheduled to perform an abortion on a girl younger than 18 notify one of her parents or an adult relative at least 48 hours before doing the procedure.

More than 30 states have parental notification laws; some states have passed laws and are not enforcing them. Of the surrounding states, only Illinois and South Dakota do not have notification laws in effect.

The Iowa law has been put on hold until Jan. 23, due to a lawsuit filed in December by Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, the Emma Goldman Clinic for Women and the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. These opponents claim that the Iowa law is unconstitutional.

Judith Rutledge, vice president of governmental affairs for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, said there are several aspects of the new law that do not abide by the Supreme Court’s guidelines for such legislation.

These laws are supposed to contain an “expeditious judicial bypass,” which allows a minor to go before a judge to ask permission to have an abortion when she does not want to tell her parents, Rutledge said.

She said that the Iowa law “does not allow for minors’ confidentiality, and it takes up to 10 working days to schedule a hearing.” Since teens usually delay making tough decisions anyway, more waiting time is usually not in the best interest of the woman, she said.

Rutledge added that it’s unfair to let judges decide who gets an abortion. The decision whether to grant permission is “completely subjective and frustrating,” she said. In Minnesota, for example, almost 100 percent of requests from minors are granted, but in Indiana, very few are. It all depends on the judge.

In addition, Rutledge said the Iowa law “requires minors to jump through all kinds of hoops,” a violation of the high court’s mandate that notification laws include medical emergency sections.

Under the new law, the doctor must notify a parent before performing an emergency abortion, or within 12 hours thereafter. Rutledge said that in emergency situations, these requirements are difficult to follow.

Opponents also take issue with the law’s “strict liability” clause that holds the physician or clinic responsible for any violations of the law, even if a young woman lies about her age or provides false identification.

“No matter what we do to make sure we’re obeying the law,” Rutledge said, “we are liable if something goes wrong. … It has a chilling effect on physicians. It limits minors’ access to abortions.”

State Senator Elaine Szymoniak, a Democrat from Des Moines, said that the bill that finally passed the state legislature was the result of a major compromise, which may be part of the problem.

Szymoniak said she had held the notification bill in committee for two years until she realized that the issue was not going to go away. Conservatives in the legislature, pressure from the Governor’s Office and the fact that many parents, even those who are pro-choice, favor parental notification, made her realize that a compromise was in order.

“I don’t see any way we can avoid it,” she said. “It’s hard to resist that, and it’s hard to believe that there are dysfunctional families with children who can’t talk to their parents. But there are.”

Despite her personal feelings against such a bill, a committee made up of four people, two Republicans and two Democrats, two men and two women, two pro-choicers and two pro-lifers, came up with the law in its present form.

The end result, she said, is a law “which made nobody happy.” Liberals like herself are upset that there’s a law at all, and conservatives are not satisfied with the “adult relative” clause, which allows a young woman to get permission from either parent, a grandparent, or an aunt or uncle over 25.

There is also a provision in the law that requires doctors and clinics that perform abortions to show each patient a video that outlines all of a woman’s options, another sore point for pro-choice backers.

Szymoniak said she fought pressure to include statements about the guilt that can follow an abortion, because she said any option a woman chooses can prompt guilt and bad feelings.

Others, like state Representative Teresa Garman, who represents the 63rd district (northern Story County and most of rural Marshall County), wanted the video to include a model of fetal development and an outline of the risks involved with an abortion.

“I want them to be fully informed,” Garman said. “I think every child should have a chance.”

And even Gov. Branstad — a strong proponent of parental notification — isn’t happy with the law. “The problem with the bill is that it’s not true parental notification,” said Eric Woolson, the governor’s communications director. “Parental notification really is telling Mom or Dad. … I think about my own family: Would I want my brothers and sisters making decisions for my family? Would I want to make decisions regarding my nieces and nephews?”

What Branstad would like to see in the law, Woolson said, is something more like the parental notification law in Pennsylvania, which limits permission to a parent or a judge only. The Pennsylvania law has withstood court challenge.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Longstaff issued a temporary restraining order against the law earlier this month after hearing the arguments. His decision could do one of two things: He could grant a preliminary injunction until a full hearing can be conducted, at which point the legislature will either throw out the law or draft a new one, or he may allow the legislation to stand.

If the law is thrown out, Szymoniak said legislators will likely draft a new one, even though she does not plan to help push it through.

“I’m certainly out of it now,” she said. “Compromise will not work.”

Branstad is expected to lobby hard for a new law.

“The governor’s feeling is that with new leadership and with Republican control in the House and Senate, the law can be amended this year,” Woolson said.