Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Arguments were held in court Friday morning between several women and the state of Indiana as to whether the latter’s new abortion law clashes with the Hoosiers’ sincerely held religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Judge Heather Welch of the Marion Superior Court considered the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Senate Enrolled Act 1 during an in-person hearing in the case of Anonymous Plaintiff 1, et al., v. The Individuals Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, in their official capacities, et al., 49D01-2209-PL-031056.
The plaintiffs — whose religious beliefs stem from Judaism, Islam, Unitarian Universalism, the Episcopal Church and paganism — asserted the prohibition on most abortions contradicts many religions that direct pregnancies to be terminated in situations that are now banned by SEA 1. The law bans abortions except in certain cases of rape and incest, to protect the physical health of the mother, or if a fetus is diagnosed with a fatal anomaly.
Represented by Ken Falk of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the plaintiffs began by asking the Marion Superior Court to still consider granting a preliminary injunction under the religious-freedom law despite a separate ruling from the Monroe Circuit Court in a different case that enjoined the abortion ban.
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, Special Judge Kelsey Hanlon opined that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates the Indiana Constitution’s guarantee of liberty.
The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted jurisdiction over the abortion dispute but denied the appellants’ “emergency motion to stay.” The case will go before the high court in January.
In the RFRA suit, Falk on Friday asserted that the plaintiffs’ lives have been “upended” by the abortion ban, causing them to “radically” alter their behaviors in attempts to avoid needing an abortion.
For one woman, that meant stopping the process of trying to get pregnant, Falk said. For another, it meant abstaining from sexual relations in her marriage for fear of becoming pregnant, he said.
Further, Judaism and Islam both compel women to obtain abortions in situations that are banned by SEA 1, Falk argued. As such, the plaintiffs following those religions face substantial pressure because they can’t exercise their religious beliefs.
“But the state argues abortion is not a religious exercise and, therefore, RFRA doesn’t apply,” Falk argued on behalf of the plaintiffs. “Well, this boils down to the state saying the plaintiffs are wrong in their belief that obtaining an abortion is compelled by their religion. But the state simply cannot say this. Courts have no business questioning whether a religious belief is reasonable or valid.”
The plaintiffs also cited the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), arguing that the ruling invalidates the state’s claim that abortion is a secular means to a religious end.
Additionally, Falk alleged that the state has no compelling reason to prohibit abortion and that although it permits abortion in certain circumstances, the state doesn’t allow for exceptions when an abortion is deemed necessary under a sincerely held religious belief.
Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, representing the defendants on behalf of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, began by stating, “It’s unclear why we are even here.” He contended that because SEA 1 has already been enjoined, another injunction was unnecessary.
Fisher then characterized the plaintiffs’ suit as request for a ruling with “symbolic significance.”
The state argued that the plaintiffs were using their “religious beliefs to demand medical intervention to end human life.” But Fisher said RFRA is designed to afford an opportunity for religious accommodation on an individualized case-by-case basis, requiring careful examination and consideration of circumstances.
“The plaintiffs instead seek to turn it into a categorical entitlement to abortion,” he said.
The state further argued that the plaintiffs’ demand for relief was “highly general” and noted that the women are not currently attempting to seek abortions. Rather, it argued, they are referring to instances in the future when they might need to secure an abortion.
The state also argued that abortions are not protected under RFRA, unlike other exceptions such as prison diets, facial hair growth or public prayer.
Fisher continued to state that the plaintiffs do not face any “immediate threat to their religious exercise” and that they do not allege that their acts of abstaining from sexual practices or changes to contraceptive use have any religious significance.
“But again, considering that we already have an injunction against the law, in our view, none of this is necessary right now,” he said in closing.
The trial court announced that the parties have until Oct. 28 to submit proposed findings of fact. Welch will issue an order on the injunction motion within 30 days after that deadline.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.