Pro-life, pro-choice arguments heard in Whitmer abortion lawsuit to halt 1931 state law

There was a key court hearing today surrounding the status of abortion laws in Michigan, and whether the 1931 law banning it can be enforced.

After the overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the US Supreme Court, the laws have reverted back to the states to decide individually. Some county prosecutors have said they plan to enforce the ban, while others have said they won't. Governor Gretchen Whitmer is suing those prosecutors saying there is a constitutional right under the state's constitution to have an abortion.

The judge understands that this is a very limited timeline and he put a hold on the 1931 state law banning abortion. He did put a hold on it, but only until the end of this hearing.

"(Whitmer) says that the 1931 law that was passed by the legislature 90 years ago is bad law," says Charlie Langton, FOX 2 legal analyst. "And it was bad law in part because it was made to keep women at home having babies - that was the argument in the court today."

Attorney DavidKallman is representing a number of prosecutors says there is no right to an abortion, and that right may have been in federal law under Roe vs Wade, but the U. S. Supreme Court overturned it.

"He said this whole issue has already been decided, like in Dr Kevorkian's case, where Dr Kevorkian wanted to end (with) life assisted suicide, and the court said no," Langton said. "(Coleman is) trying to say that you should not be able to end a life before it's born."

Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit is one of the prosecutors who is pro-choice.

FOX 2: "Do you think this law was made to keep women at home having babies?"

"In fact, that is what the history shows," Savit said. "In the 19th century, there was a movement against women's increasing participation in civic life and political life. The anti-abortion movement sprung out of that to try to return women to what was seen as their rightful place as mothers. So these two are intertwined."

Kallman, who is pro-life, disagreed.

"That's silly," he said. "We have all kinds of laws on the books that are from 100 years ago, 150 years ago. They're not invalid just because they're old. That's a silly argument."

More: State pro-choice advocates win in court with restraining order by judge

FOX 2: "You say that this case has already been tried and the decision in Dr. (Jack) Kevorkian (case) which says you can't have assisted suicide should apply here."

"Right but well, they are making the argument for bodily integrity," he said. "That that's a new argument under the Constitution that means there's a right to abortion. The Kevorkian case says no, and that's why I argued that. Because they said you don't have the right to end a life.

"That's what Dr. Kevorkian was arguing, and he argued it based on bodily integrity. You have the right to end a life - that was a life at the end of life. That was somebody who wanted to end their life. But why is that any different? Why would it be applied any differently to the beginning of life."

Related: Whitmer again asks high court to immediately clarify abortion access in Michigan

On Wednesday in court a couple of doctors testified saying that based on statistics, 90 percent of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks, most by African-American women. They added that African-American women generally don't have good reproductive healthcare and that pregnancies are more dangerous than abortions.

This is the governor's case, saying that the law in 1931 is archaic, and it treats African-Americans differently which violates the Equal Protection law, they argued.

There will be witnesses starting tomorrow at 9 30 in the morning. This case is far from over.