Turning Point: Here's Everything You Need To Know About Indiana's Much-Talked Abortion Ban

In Indiana, a total ban on most abortions came into force on August 1st, as per reports from USA Today. Now abortion is illegal at any moment during pregnancy unless the woman's life or health is in grave danger.

If a "lethal fetal anomaly" is identified, abortion would be permissible before 22 weeks of pregnancy or until 12 weeks of pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.

Last August, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1 to outlaw all abortions save in cases of rape, incest, foetal abnormalities, or when the mother's life is in danger.

The ACLU of Indiana filed two lawsuits to overturn the law. In both cases, a county court granted a preliminary injunction, which prevents the new law from taking effect until the court issues are resolved.

A Turning Point For Abortion Bans: Indiana Unveils Near-total Abortion Bans On Aug. 1

Credit: WFYI

Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics filed a last-minute legal plea with the Indiana Supreme Court late Monday, requesting that the justices reconsider their prior legal challenge. The action may delay the law's implementation by a few hours or days, but most expect the Court to certify its initial 4-1 verdict upholding the law, announced on June 30.

A second lawsuit, filed on behalf of Hoosier Jews for Choice, claims the prohibition violates their religious freedom rights under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it contradicts their religious convictions. That lawsuit is still pending, and the outcome would affect the plaintiffs and potentially the class of people they represent: those whose religious convictions "direct them to obtain abortions in situations" that violate the ban.

Credit: AP News

Can Anyone Claim The Religious Exemption?

As the court case continues, this one becomes more hazy. The injunction was issued in December, and the claim was certified as a class-action lawsuit last month, which means it applies to everyone who has sincerely held religious convictions, not just those named in the suit.

The ACLU contends that the injunction thus extends to the class as a whole rather than simply the plaintiffs. However, the organisation filed a motion with the Marion Superior Court on Monday to clarify this. Exemptions from some laws and mandates are not new grounds for courts, but how an exemption, if allowed at all, will be handed out and approved for abortions in Indiana is unknown.

If the existing injunction is upheld, Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana and a spokesman for the plaintiffs in both cases, said the process for obtaining an abortion due to a religious exemption might go through a certification process. These will likely determine the genuineness of the belief. Jody Madeira, an IU law professor, believes that is impossible. Assessing sincerity becomes challenging since it can lead to an unlawful evaluation of the inherent religious claim. As a result, the procedure could be clearer.

"It's a swamp of First Amendment issues," Madeira observed. The closest analogue to a religious exception is the one provided for the COVID-19 vaccine regulations, but Madeira stated that people had to assume their religious views were genuine. If the injunction is upheld, pregnant women may be allowed to claim they have particular religious views to seek an abortion, according to Madeira. "In a way, it says, pregnancy is akin to compelled speech," Madeira said of the plaintiffs' argument. The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the RFRA case in September.

Abortions In Hospitals: How Will They Be Handled?

It's unclear what most Indiana hospitals will do for the time being. Still, each provider will have to design their system for certification or determine how to manage particular health concerns for pregnant women.

IU Health issued an emailed statement expressing disappointment with the court's judgement and stating that it opposes legislation that interferes with the connection between patients and clinicians.

Here's Why Other Legal Challenges Are Possible:

Although the ACLU's first challenge was unsuccessful, the majority judgement of the court stated that the door might be open for further legal challenges with more narrowly focused scopes centred on the pregnant person's health.

According to Madeira, narrower claims focusing on certain provisions of SB 1 rather than the entire statute have a better chance of succeeding in court. She suggested that the majority opinion's judges investigate other narrower grounds, such as arguing for more exceptions not explicitly spelled out in the law, as an alternate approach to contesting this legislation.

What do you think about it? Do let us know in the comments.

For more trending stories, follow us on Telegram.