The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that a state law protecting most preborn children from abortion can stand, vacating an earlier injunction on the law. However, the plaintiffs in a separate legal case who are challenging the state’s abortion law as a threat to their religious freedom are exempt from the current ruling.
The law, SB 1, protects most preborn children in the state from abortion, with exemptions for cases of rape and incest, to protect the life or health of the mother (though directly and intentionally killing a preborn child is not medically necessary), or if the preborn child is diagnosed with a condition that doctors predict to be fatal.
In September 2022, a county judge put an injunction on the law after a challenge from the abortion industry. At that time, Special Judge Kelsey B. Hanlon found that there was a “reasonable likelihood” that the law violated the state constitution’s privacy protections. The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses Hanlon’s injunction, confirming that the pro-life law is constitutional.
In his verdict, Justice Derek R. Molter wrote that the state’s constitution “protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but the General Assembly otherwise retains broad legislative discretion for determining whether and the extent to which to prohibit abortions.”
Following the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in support of life today, my office released the following statement: pic.twitter.com/CQdGlU1FhO
— AG Todd Rokita (@AGToddRokita) June 30, 2023
Attorney General Todd Rokita praised the ruling. “We celebrate this day – one long in coming, but morally justified. Thank you to all the warriors who have fought for this day that upholds LIFE,” he said in a statement.
“Indiana’s unborn babies are the victors in today’s ruling,” added Mike Fichter, president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life.
Fichter said the court’s decision “sends a message to the rest of the nation that when we stand together with love and compassion in protecting unborn babies and supporting pregnant mothers, we save lives, improve lives, and support a national culture that values life.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s ruling will not apply to five women who sued the state with the claim that the pro-life law violated their religious freedom. The law was blocked in December under that lawsuit.
Though the court upheld the law, it is unclear how soon it may take effect. According to the Associated Press, the case returns to the county judge for further action, and the ACLU has 30 days to ask the court to review its decision. Indiana University law professor Jody Madeira also noted that the court’s specific wording leaves the door open to other potential legal challenges.
“(SB1) is not in effect currently because the Supreme Court remanded this case back to the lower court for further proceedings,” Madeira said. “And so again, it could take us back to my prediction is as early as August 1, unless the ACLU files a petition for rehearing. I do think that they will (file for rehearing), but be more narrowly tailored considering the Supreme Court’s opinion today.”
