Indiana Judge Upholds Abortion Ban, Rejects Expansion of Exceptions

An Indiana county judge has ruled against abortion providers and advocacy groups seeking to broaden access to abortion under the state’s near-total ban, enacted in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. SB 1, which was signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb in 2022, prohibits abortions except in cases of rape, incest, lethal fetal anomalies, or when a woman’s life or health is at risk. Indiana was the first state to enact a near-total abortion ban after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision returned to individual states the authority to determine their own abortion policies. In their lawsuit against SB 1, the plaintiffs wanted to expand the law’s medical exemptions and block the requirement that abortions be performed only in hospitals. They argued that the exemptions for protecting women’s health are so narrow that doctors often hesitate to terminate pregnancies, sometimes in medically justified cases. They also argued that the hospital-only requirement increases the cost of care and limits access. In her 50-page ruling, Hanlon upheld both of the challenged provisions of SB 1, concluding that they do not violate constitutional protections and that the plaintiffs didn’t provide examples to support their arguments. “Plaintiffs have not shown an instance where an abortion is necessary to treat a serious health risk but would also fall outside of the Health and Life Exception,” Hanlon wrote, adding that medical professionals have shown an ability to apply the law’s health and life exceptions, ensuring that necessary care is provided. “Additionally, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Hospital Requirement is materially burdensome to constitutionally protected abortion access, nor that it fails rational basis review as to statutorily authorized (but not constitutionally protected) abortions,” she wrote. Hanlon said that strong evidence was presented on the impact of SB 1 on medical professionals, but emphasized that the court cannot override the policy decisions made by the Indiana General Assembly. The judge noted that the statutory definition of “serious health risk” in SB 1 puts Indiana doctors “in the incredibly unenviable position of providing exigent obstetrical care in a politically charged environment and under a new statutory regime that includes potential criminal liability and license revocation.” However, she wrote, SB 1 allows abortion when physicians believe, based on “reasonable medical judgment,” that “a woman would face a serious risk” within the meaning of the law. In response to the ruling, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita hailed the decision as a victory for the state’s pro-life movement. “Hoosiers with serious health complications have been forced to endure unjustifiable suffering due to miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other pregnancy-related issues or leave the state to access appropriate care,” reads the statement from Planned Parenthood, ACLU of Indiana, All-Options, and the Lawyering Project. The plaintiffs are expected to appeal the ruling.