Indiana Supreme Court won’t rehear abortion law ruling, putting it back in effect

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The Indiana Supreme Court on Monday denied a request to rehear its ruling upholding the state’s near-total abortion ban.

That means the new law—which prohibits the procedure with only narrow exceptions—will immediately take effect once the ruling is certified on the court docket, which is expected to be a matter of days, according to court officials.

In a split, 4-1 decision, high court justices reaffirmed in their order that Planned Parenthood and other health care providers “cannot show a reasonable likelihood of success” with their challenge to the abortion restrictions because there are cases in which the ban could be constitutionally enforced.

Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush, who concurred with the ruling, reiterated in her own opinion that Indiana’s Constitution grants a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy “to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk … under circumstances that extend beyond the current law.”

“Given that possibility, I am deeply concerned about Senate Bill 1’s impact on Hoosier women’s constitutional right to seek medical care that is necessary to protect their life or to protect them from a serious health risk. And I am likewise concerned about the law’s impact on health care providers who must determine whether to provide that care and potentially expose themselves to criminal penalties and professional sanctions,” Rush wrote in her opinion. “But Plaintiffs have not properly put these concerns before us.”

Justices close the matter—for now

Rush said the original injunction—which prevented the near-total abortion ban from being enforced in its entirety—was improper, and that “there is simply no sound legal basis for an interim injunction that is even broader than the relief plaintiffs intend to pursue in the trial court.”

She added that, “for good reason,” the judicial system requires those challenging the law to first seek narrower relief in the trial court, which unlike the state Supreme Court, “can receive and weigh competing evidence, including expert testimony.”

But Justice Christopher M. Goff dissented, writing in a separate opinion that he would rather leave a revised statewide injunction in place, preventing the ban from being enforced “in circumstances where a physician has determined in good faith that an abortion is medically necessary.”

“This would be for a limited time—perhaps 60 days—so the trial court can hear arguments and evidence and consider whether to enter a new injunction,” Goff wrote. “Maintaining this restriction for now would provide the added benefit of preserving a stable legal environment for women, healthcare providers, and law enforcement.”

Goff, who also dissented in the June ruling, said the new abortion restrictions do not prohibit the procedure when necessary “to prevent death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

But the justice noted that the exception does not include psychological or emotional conditions, including instances in which a woman shows signs that she intends to hurt herself.

Goff contended that the law, as written, does not allow abortions in response to:

– conditions that cause serious pain, suffering, or disability without irreversible impairment
– severe psychiatric illnesses, which may require medication that can’t be taken during pregnancy
– psychiatric issues that may lead to suicide or self harm

“These are all potentially severe medical problems. And seeking medically necessary treatment for them likely falls within the ambit of the constitutional right to protect one’s life and health,” Goff wrote. “Unless our colleagues in the General Assembly act to address these deficiencies, the State must be enjoined from enforcing Senate Bill 1 in ways that prevent women from seeking necessary medical aid.”

“No one yet knows the precise contours of the life and health protections guaranteed by the Indiana Constitution,” he continued. “But, for the sake of the lives and health of Hoosier women, our health care professionals and our justice system need to know as quickly as possible. Having declared the right of a woman to protect her health, this Court should not now let that right go unprotected.”

What happens next

In a similar split, 4-1 decision in June, the high court nixed a preliminary injunction that has kept the ban on hold since September. An injunction issued in a separate religious freedom challenge to the ban only applies to the plaintiffs in that case. The separate matter is continuing to play out in the Court of Appeals.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs that challenged the law in the constitutional case had 30 days after the Indiana Supreme Court’s June ruling to seek a rehearing, before the decision was certified. In the meantime, that put the ban on hold. Rehearings are rarely granted, though.

Justices left open the possibility for other challenges in the future, however.

Even so, hesitancy persists among medical providers across the state—all of which have already stopped providing abortion care services altogether. Patients are instead being referred to clinics outside the state.

The five Indiana justices heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the new law in January.

The court challenge was originally filed in Monroe County Circuit Court in August 2022 by the ACLU on behalf of health care providers and a pregnancy resource center.

A special judge in Owen County later ruled that the ban likely violates the Indiana Constitution.

An injunction issued by Judge Kelsey Blake Hanlon, a Republican, halted the state’s new abortion law one week after it took effect. Under the injunction, the state’s previous abortion law stood—allowing abortions up to 20 weeks.

The Republican-dominated Indiana General Assembly advanced the abortion-restricting measure during a heated, two-week special session last August.

That action made Indiana the first state in the nation to approve such legislation since the high court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

The ban outlaws all abortions except in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly and cases of serious health risk to the mother. One part of the law says these exceptions are up to 20 weeks but another part says they can be used anytime. Rape survivors can get an abortion up to 10 weeks post-fertilization. It also strips abortion clinics of their state medical licenses, and provides that only hospitals and hospital-owned ambulatory surgical centers can provide abortions.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

16 thoughts on “Indiana Supreme Court won’t rehear abortion law ruling, putting it back in effect

  1. We’re going to look back on this in 200 years and ask ourselves, “did we really kill our children?” just like we ask ourselves today, “did we really allow slavery?”

    1. I think it’s more likely we will look back and wonder that the entire fuss was about given that Republicans got their law passed and turned right around and started pushing 15 week abortion bans … which would legalize 93% of abortions …

      And folks will also look back and ask, if those folks were so against abortion, why did the same people fight for abstinence-only sex education and did nothing to push the availability of contraception that would have dramatically reduced the number of unintended pregnancies?

      And they’ll also look back and wonder why, if Indiana was such a pro-life state, its maternal mortality rate was so awful. Did they not care about the life of the mother? Why force women’s to carry kids that were not viable until there was a medical emergency, jeopardizing the ability of the woman to have kids in the future?

      And they’ll also wonder why, once those kids were in the world, we didn’t care about giving the parents decent child care options and why we underfunded their schools.

      It’s almost as though a bunch of politicians formed a union with a bunch of religious extremists that fell apart as soon as the alliance no longer suited both sides.

      But most of all, they will look back and wonder why on earth people thought it was good to have Todd Rokita involved as a public official in the matter.

    2. Since when did the right wing ever ask themselves “did we really allow slavery”? P.S It’s not a child…

    3. Jolf–

      Are we going to play the “they switched sides” game?

      The party that sponsored the New Deal under FDR was the same party that defended Jim Crow, and 100 years earlier, defended slavery. Adlai Stephenson (the Democrat defeated by Eisenhower twice in a row), had an Alabama Congressman named John Sparkman as his running mate. Though Stephenson was more of the bookish, academic type, his running mate was a Dixiecrat, fully in support of poll taxes and other Jim Crow signifiers.

      The Democratic party has always fused together coalitions that include people who aren’t customarily “left wing”. I mean, look at how Democrats have cozied up with Islamists in recent years. This doesn’t mean much of anyone today supports slavery on either side, but to pretend that the GOP was leftist while the Dems were the right-wingers in the past is delusional.

      And, yes, it IS a child, from the point of a fertilized zygote (blastomere) with unique DNA, it is a human in its earliest stages of development. To pretend otherwise is to be a science-denier. Which I thought was “right wing”.

    4. Jolt R.
      The science has come a long way since the mid 70’s.

      Since when did the unborn just become unwanted garbage to be just thrown out.

    5. The same people who care so much about the unborn generally don’t care all that much about one of the worst maternal mortality rates in America, nor about the safety, welfare, or education of those kids.

      You can complain about the unborn being unwanted garbage. I see a world in which the newly born are unwanted garbage. Arguing about the difference seems like a waste of time to me.

    1. Yes.

      Telling when the Republican Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court lays out to plaintiffs on how to appeal the new law to be more successful in her court.

      Also telling when all the states around Indiana end up being more permissive on the topic of abortion than Indiana does because Indiana legislators refuse to put the matter to the voters.

  2. Banning treatment when a fatal fetal anomaly goes past 20 weeks shows just how Super Stupid Indiana’s Super Stupid Majority is about medical science.

  3. If you can say you’re okay with ending the life of a developing human being, then I at least I beleve you are honest in your support of abortion. If you hide behind terms such as ‘abortion is health care” than you are not coming to terms with what abortion really is.

    1. If abortion is something that people want as little of as possible, why not reduce the number via all available means?

      Why are people who are pro-life fixated on banning the procedure as opposed to making the number of people seeking the procedure in the first place very small?

      Banning the procedure doesn’t eliminate the demand. It just moves it underground or to something only the wealthy can afford.

    2. Lauren, that is transphobic. Men can become pregnant too, so they have every right to discuss pregnancy.

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In