3 days ago
Indiana court upholds abortion ban in case asking for more health exceptions. Here's why
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the state's near-total abortion ban on Aug. 11, ruling that the 2022 law did not violate the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" clause of the Indiana Constitution.
The decision is the latest blow to efforts by reproductive rights advocates seeking to expand abortion access after the Indiana General Assembly banned it except in the case of rape or incest, lethal fetal anomalies or risk to the health and life of the pregnant person. Under the first exception, abortions must be obtained within 10 weeks after fertilization while physicians can perform abortions for lethal fetal anomalies up to 20 weeks post-fertilization.
In his opinion, Judge Paul Mathias wrote that while people have a constitutionally protected right to abortion when their life or health is seriously at risk, Indiana's abortion ban already contains those exceptions. Chief Judge Robert Altice and Judge Mary DeBoer concurred.
The plaintiffs, abortion providers including Planned Parenthood, had argued the opposite, claiming there are specific circumstances where pregnancy risks someone's health or life without qualifying as an exception to the law. These included circumstances like health conditions where pregnancy would require pausing treatment to protect the fetus or severe mental illness. The providers also challenged how the law required all abortions to be performed by licensed hospitals or their outpatient surgical centers, which the court similarly rejected.
The appeal affirms the trial court's ruling, which did not find a health condition that would justify an abortion under the Indiana Constitution that was prohibited by the abortion ban law.
More: Indiana has a near-total abortion ban. But hospitals still performed some in 2024
The decision follows another Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in 2024 that allowed a small group of Hoosiers who do not believe life begins at conception to obtain an abortion, citing the state's religious freedom law. However, that ruling only applied to the plaintiffs and does not extend to every person with that belief.
That case has since been granted class-action status and has returned to trial court.
This story may be updated.
