Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana abortion clinic operators filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block the state’s near-total ban on abortions.
The lawsuit filed in a Monroe County court claims the ban, set to take effect on Sept. 15, “strips away the fundamental rights of people seeking abortion care” in violation of the Indiana Constitution. It argues the law “will infringe on Hoosiers’ right to privacy, violate Indiana’s guarantee of equal privileges and immunities, and includes unconstitutionally vague language.”
Indiana’s Republican-dominated Legislature approved the tighter abortion restrictions on Aug. 5, making it the first state to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated federal abortion protections for abortions by overturning Roe v. Wade in June.
The Indiana law includes exceptions, allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest, before 10 weeks post-fertilization; to protect the life and physical health of the mother; and if a fetus is diagnosed with a lethal anomaly.
Under the law, abortions can be performed only in hospitals or outpatient centers owned by hospitals, meaning all abortion clinics would lose their licenses. Any doctors found to have performed an illegal abortion would be stripped of their state medical licenses and could face felony criminal charges punishable by up to six years in prison.
Indiana’s ban followed the political firestorm over a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to the state from neighboring Ohio to end her pregnancy. The case gained wide attention when an Indianapolis doctor said the child came to Indiana because of Ohio’s “fetal heartbeat” ban.
The leader of Indiana’s most prominent anti-abortion group argued the state constitution protects life as among the “inalienable rights.”
“We are confident the state will prevail and pray the new law is not blocked from going into effect on September 15, knowing that any delay will mean the indiscriminate killing of unborn children will continue at abortion clinics across Indiana,” Indiana Right to Life CEO Mike Fichter said in a statement.
The suit was filed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky; ACLU of Indiana; Whole Woman’s Health Alliance; Women’s Med Group Professional Corp.; All-Options Inc.; Lawyering Project and Dr. Amy Caldwell.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Killing babies is good business.
ba·by
/ˈbābē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born
Correcting Dan: a very young child, especially one newly, recently, or soon to be born.
Our maternal mortality rate has been awful for years, along with the number of newborns dying, and there’s barely been a whimper from all you “pro-life” folks.
Funny how so many “pro-life” folks lose interest in loving them both when the baby exits the birth canal.
The same usual nonsense from you, Joe B; a broken record if there ever was one.
Before you again post that stupidity, investigate how many baby necessities are supplied to new mothers by Women’s Care centers around the state for at least two years AFTER a baby is born as a result of their counseling.
I’d do it for you and post the figures, but I know I’d be wasting my time.
What’s the old expression? “Don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.”
Personally, though, if I were you, I’d be embarrassed to be so ignorant of the facts of this matter. But, again, shame is a word unknown to liberals.
That’s great, Bob. More is needed than some diapers, way more. But you know that. That’s why what I say sticks in your craw.
If Indiana was truly a pro-life state, we’d have set the goal of being the best state in America to be a pregnant woman or young baby. But we didn’t, because we aren’t truly a pro-life state. We showed in our last special session our priorities.
Heck, Indiana Republicans are sitting on the poll that shows we want first trimester abortions. It that poll had shown support for what legislators had passed, it would have been released. But you know that, don’t you?
I can go on if you’d like.
By the way, I await your numbers. It’d be nice to see you respond with decent facts for once as opposed to faux outrage. Just remember, they will have another 5-7,000 babies a year to deal with from now on.
Faux outrage? Seriously, Joe B., could I post anything that would change your mind on this issue….or your opinion of pro-life people? Of course not; hence, why waste my time? I’ve followed your train of thought for years on this topic and you are dead-set against the pro-life movement. Period. Non-negotiable for you.
As I said elsewhere, check with any reputable adoption agency and they will verify their waiting lists for newborn babies of any color and/or gender, so there’s no need for you to fret about losing one of your precious dollars to the 5,000-7,000 new Indiana citizens born annually as a result of this new law.
Maybe you’ll contract a previously-terminal disease later in life for which one of them found a cure. However, given your opinion of their having been born, I’d say you wouldn’t deserve to have it administered to you.
Bob. I’m still waiting on the numbers. You told me you could post them. Not off to a rousing start here.
(Maybe I never change my mind because you never make a compelling case. Think about it…)
And, since you’ve misrepresented my position for like the 14th time, maybe this time will work.
I think going after the supply side would be the better way to reduce the number of abortions. If no one wanted an abortion, because no one had an unplanned pregnancy that they couldn’t afford, then no one would get an elective abortion. Things like IUD’s given to at-risk teenagers go a long way to reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions.
You’re going at it from the demand side – thinking that if you ban abortions, no one will have abortions. We tried that before with alcohol during Prohibition and the pre-Roe time. I’ve yet to see evidence that this attempt to ban abortions will do anything but drive desperate women to make bad choices that will hurt or kill them. Your solution appears to be they should give the child up for adoption.
And, no, I don’t think you represent a pro-life movement – it’s just anti-abortion.
I don’t see pro-life folks pushing for more contraception or better sex education so that there are less unplanned pregnancies.
I don’t see pro-life folks fighting to stop Indiana nursing homes from taking money intended for the elderly and using it to build big shiny buildings instead.
I don’t see pro-life folks worried about income inequality or gun violence or air pollution or dirty water or any number of issues that take lives.
I mean, at least Catholics are ideologically consistent enough to protest the death penalty too. But a whole lot of pro-life folks are sure OK with the government killing people even though it’s cheaper to just jail them … and you never have to worry about accidentally killing an innocent person.
Again, not really pro-life. Just anti-abortion with good marketing.
I would gladly pay my precious tax dollars to make Indiana a state with the best maternal outcomes in the Union as opposed to being in the bottom five. Maybe you should ask those “pro-life” legislators why, then they had a six billion dollar surplus, $55 million dollars was all they wanted to spend on better outcomes for women and children. Doesn’t seem very pro-life to me, but then again, according to you, I’m not pro-life at all, am I?
Bodily autonomy is good for Indiana businesses who want to recruit and keep talent. If you don’t believe in abortion… then don’t get one or cause one to be needed. I applaud this effort.
We’ll respectfully but nonetheless strongly disagree on this one, Lauren.
That’s like saying, “if you don’t believe in murdering your enemies, then don’t murder yours.”
That’s a good analogy because, as Indiana’s law is written, killing a baby in the womb, other than for the exceptions allowed which you favor, will be illegal come September 15.
Further, Lauren, if Indiana’s pro-life law, replete with provisions for the exceptions noted therein, is a deciding factor as to whether or not a person wants to advance their career in Indiana, I would just as soon they stay wherever they are if they are more pleased with that locale’s abortion laws…or lack thereof. Seriously.
Here you go, Lauren and others who want to believe this woke nonsense:
A new study from the American Legislative Exchange Council rates Indiana as having the 7th best economic outlook in the nation for businesses. We significantly outscore every state around us. Michigan ranked 17th best; Ohio rated 19th best; Kentucky was 34th worst and Illinois, 45th worst.
Where are these Indiana businesses going to go to find better business conditions? (According to that study, the top 12 states for positive business climate are all socially conservative states, whereas the bottom five are all pro-abortion, socially liberal policy states like NJ, CA, MN, VT, and NY.)
I’m shocked that the totally partisan ALEC thinks that Republican states that pass their laws are better for business.
Next you’ll tell me that Indiana Right to Life doesn’t think much of Illinois’ abortion laws, or that Planned Parenthood has a rating that ranks Indiana poorly for women’s reproductive freedom.
Know your sources, Bob. And still waiting on those numbers.
“Although anti-abortion activists have often pointed to adoption as an alternative to abortion for expectant mothers, Indiana already has nearly 10,000 children in foster care. Adopting children is a slow, difficult process through the state, while the cost of private adoption can rise into the tens of thousands of dollars.
There are more than 1,000 children available for adoption through the state with a majority in foster homes with families who plan to adopt them. The remaining children in foster care but not yet available for adoption are in various stages of a sometimes slow legal process.
There were 1,816 state adoptions in Indiana in 2021. There are 171 children eligible and in active adoption recruitment, according to DCS.
“When we make very hasty decisions,” said Sharon Pierce, a longtime child welfare advocate, “we don’t necessarily have a chance to look at the full picture of what is needed for all the populations that will be touched and that would include those foster families who may well be asked to accept more children.”
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2022/08/24/foster-care-indiana-adoption-abortion-law-department-of-child-services/65392514007/
Abortion is a medical procedure and should be decided upon between a doctor and the patient. The government should have no legal right to ban it, and possibly not even to regulate it. In addition, the legislature is completely hypocritical when it bans abortion, but gives free rein with virtually no regulation on guns, including permitless carry. They can’t have it both ways. Either you are pro-life or or you’re not.
And don’t give me the argument that gun regulation is trying to take guns away from people and against the 2nd amendment, which includes the phrase “…well regulated…”. Not one gun control advocate is saying guns can’t be owned – not one.
These two issues have become inextricably linked due to bad legislative practices.
The true believers among the gun control crowd know the value of hiding their true agenda, Robert S. Incrementalism is playing the long game, you know…or maybe you don’t.
Good. Happy to see them fight this. A woman’s womb should not be government property.
Nobody said it is, Meredith.
What about the unborn baby’s body; does he/she not have the Right to Life you enjoy because he/she is smaller and less able to defend itself than you are?
Bob – if a woman can no longer make health decisions about her womb then how can you say it’s hers?
A fertilized egg is not a baby. It’s a potential baby. A 10 week fetus is not a baby. Do we get to claim a 10 week old fetus on our taxes? Do we celebrate conception day or birthday? You need to sit this one out, Bob. You have no idea what we women go through in this realm. Seriously. No idea.
Have you seen an accurate image of a 10-week old in the womb, Meredith? I have as they are readily available. I’m yet to hear of a child who looks at such a picture say, “Oh, that’s not a baby; it’s a fetus.”
Even an 8-year-old can look at that picture and will volunteer that it is a baby. Geeze…does human intelligence devolve from that point…or do pro-abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason human beings simply become more self-absorbed?
Like I said, Bob you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Ask an 8 year old how babies are made? Ask an 8 year old to distinguish between different mammal fetuses? Good grief. Your opinion about my intelligence means nothing to me. Coming from the likes of you it’s almost a compliment. Cheers.
Meredith: Just because an 8-YO can’t explain conception, does that mean they can’t identify a baby when they see one? 8-YOs probably don’t know how a tomato grows, but they can distinguish it from an apple or a banana.
Interestingly, there’s a preponderance of one gender who will never have the other gender tell them that, “regardless of how this came about, you have no choice but to carry this child to term and there’s not thing-one you can do about it because my opinion is never wrong and oh, I also happen to vote for the party which will refuse to provide any social programs for your pre- and post-natal care.”
@BobP: “does he/she not have the Right to Life you enjoy”
.
Funny, this same question could be posed when it comes to people who are accused of murder. Now, you can say, “what if we’re absolutely positively certain they killed someone” vs. just “beyond a reasonable doubt”? What about the people who were convicted under the former and while legal stalling takes place across the span of time measured in decades and it turns out they were innocent? “The system worked”? (what about the ones who were put to death?) AND…there are multiple cases right now (strangely, they’re all in the South) where two people are tried for the case, found innocent, but both are still in prison because someone feels that it’s better for *someone* to serve than *no one*. It’s strange how the same political party is pro-life for children but pro-death for adults.
For those of us who believe in Holy Writ, Phillip; it is written that we should not kill and that it is reserved for the government to execute those convicted of murder.
Funny that you should prattle on about those few who have been executed wrongly but have no qualms about executing an unborn human being who cannot be guilty of anything!
We live in an imperfect world, Phillip. No amount of slaughtering innocents (“recreational abortion”, as the vast majority of them are properly termed) will change that, nor will willy-nilly destroying future citizens as a result of two-party irresponsibility encourage the personal responsibility we so desperately need these days.
Ah, but Bob, you didn’t address the issue of why kill them when you stand to make a mistake? Personally, I think it would be interesting if juries (or judges in the case of bench trials) were told, “and if it turns out you send someone to their death unjustly, you too will be committed to the same fate.”
Yes, I did address it, Phillip P. I allowed that we live in an imperfect world. Until you figure out how to make it perfect, mistakes have been made…and will continue to be made.
IBJ “journalists”: OMG, special session with an outcome we didn’t like cost money!
How much is the lawsuit over 10 year old boys’ playing girls sports costing the taxpayers?