The Backstory:

Passed in 2017, the state's “aid-or-assist statute” was meant to protect minors from coerced abortions by prohibiting health care providers from offering abortion information to minors without parental consent.

Following its passage, the legislation was challenged by Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky Inc. (PPGNHAIK). It was temporarily halted in 2017 and then permanently struck down in 2024 by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker.

In her 2024 ruling, Barker stated that the law violated the First Amendment because it went too far in restricting free speech.

“Thus, contrary to the State’s contention, the aid-or-assist statute does not simply restrict PPGNHAIK’s speech only as it relates to immature, dependent minors, but would also prevent PPGNHAIK and its physicians from speaking or otherwise communicating about out-of-state abortion care, even to minors who have parental consent for their abortion or who would be deemed mature enough to make the abortion decision for themselves but for whatever reason are not seeking to comply with Indiana’s parental consent and/or judicial bypass procedures,” Barker wrote at the time.

The Details:

Following Barker's ruling, the state appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court. Attorneys for the state were in court this week arguing that the law is intended to uphold parental rights.

"There's certainly a strong interest of the state in ensuring that the parent-child bond isn't broken by a child getting medical procedures without their parents' permission, knowledge or consent," said Indiana Deputy Solicitor General Jenna Lorence.

The ACLU, on behalf of PPGNHAIK, argued that the state is trying to differentiate between offering a referral for care and giving a minor information.

"I can't imagine that there is a constitutional difference between Planned Parenthood saying, 'Here's this information in the event you find it useful' and Planned Parenthood saying, 'Here's this information. If you decide to use it, I happen to know that Dr. Smith has a short wait period,'" said Gavin Rose of ACLU Indiana.

The court has not indicated when it might offer a ruling in the case.

The Bottom Line:

The state of Indiana protects nearly all preborn children from abortion; with this law, it's also trying to protect young girls who may be subjected to coercion. The law aims to ensure that vulnerable teens turn to their parents for support before they undergo risky abortion procedures.

Following its passage, the legislation was challenged by Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky Inc. (PPGNHAIK). It was temporarily halted in 2017 and then permanently struck down in 2024 by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker.

In her 2024 ruling, Barker stated that the law violated the First Amendment because it went too far in restricting free speech.

“Thus, contrary to the State’s contention, the aid-or-assist statute does not simply restrict PPGNHAIK’s speech only as it relates to immature, dependent minors, but would also prevent PPGNHAIK and its physicians from speaking or otherwise communicating about out-of-state abortion care, even to minors who have parental consent for their abortion or who would be deemed mature enough to make the abortion decision for themselves but for whatever reason are not seeking to comply with Indiana’s parental consent and/or judicial bypass procedures,” Barker wrote at the time.

The Details:

Following Barker's ruling, the state appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court. Attorneys for the state were in court this week arguing that the law is intended to uphold parental rights.

"There's certainly a strong interest of the state in ensuring that the parent-child bond isn't broken by a child getting medical procedures without their parents' permission, knowledge or consent," said Indiana Deputy Solicitor General Jenna Lorence.

The ACLU, on behalf of PPGNHAIK, argued that the state is trying to differentiate between offering a referral for care and giving a minor information.

"I can't imagine that there is a constitutional difference between Planned Parenthood saying, 'Here's this information in the event you find it useful' and Planned Parenthood saying, 'Here's this information. If you decide to use it, I happen to know that Dr. Smith has a short wait period,'" said Gavin Rose of ACLU Indiana.

The court has not indicated when it might offer a ruling in the case.

The Bottom Line:

The state of Indiana protects nearly all preborn children from abortion; with this law, it's also trying to protect young girls who may be subjected to coercion. The law aims to ensure that vulnerable teens turn to their parents for support before they undergo risky abortion procedures.

New Mexico abortion advocates plan second state-funded abortion business