Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIn the first hearing in state court on Indiana’s new abortion law, the opposing parties argued over whether the Indiana Constitution conferred to a right to privacy which protects the ability of Hoosier women to obtain a legal abortion.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office presented their arguments in Monroe Circuit Court for a little over an hour on Monday in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc., et al. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana et al., 53C06-2208-PL-001756. At the hearing, the court considered the ACLU of Indiana’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block Senate Enrolled Act 1, which prohibits most abortions.
Prior to the hearing, the ACLU of Indiana and the attorney general filed their briefs supporting and opposing the preliminary injunction.
Special Judge Kelsey Hanlon opened the hearing by asking the parties if the state constitution included a right to privacy. She then explored the limits of state power by inquiring if the Indiana General Assembly could ban abortions in the cases of rape and incest and if the legislators could also outlaw contraceptives.
Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, maintained the Indiana Constitution encapsulates the right to privacy and that multiple court cases have established that Article 1, Section 1, is judicially enforceable.
Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher countered that the state constitution does not contain a general right to privacy. Moreover, in 1851 when the current constitution was written, abortion was against the law in all circumstances, he said.
At the close of his argument, Fisher addressed Hanlon’s inquiry about oral contraceptives. He said while the state has an “unquestionable” compelling governmental interest in protecting the life of the unborn, banning contraceptives is a very different question.
Hanlon asked him if there is “a constitutional impediment to the Legislature criminalizing abortion for raped women and children?”
Fisher responded “no.”
Falk used the exchange to reiterate the right to privacy argument. He asserted the state cannot ban contraceptives, but only because for the right to privacy and personal autonomy. As such, that right exists for contraceptives as well as abortion.
At the conclusion of the arguments, Hanlon said she hopes to issue an order “expeditiously.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.