WFHB Bloomington Community Radio
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 4:16 — 3.9MB)
The Supreme Court issued a decision today that may change the landscape of abortion law in Indiana. By a 5-3 margin, the court struck down laws in Texas that imposed tougher standards on abortion clinics and would have forced many to close. The court focused on two specific parts of the law. The first required doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and the second would have required clinics to spend millions of dollars upgrading their facilities to the same standards as outpatient surgical centers. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, ruled that the requirements were medically unnecessary, and placed an undue burden on the ability to access abortion services. The court did not believe Texas’ argument that the law was necessary to protect women from harm during abortion procedures. The ruling drew heavily from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case which established the undue burden standard as a matter of legal precedent.
Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana ACLU, commented on the reasoning behind the ruling of the Supreme Court: “The court found that both of these requirements did not further any State interest in protecting the life and health of the mother; and instead acted as an impediment to the right to obtain an abortion, and therefore, they were deemed to be unconstitutional.”
The ACLU is currently involved in a lawsuit challenging House Bill 1337, a package of new abortion restrictions signed into law earlier this year. The Indiana law, while conceptually similar to the Texas bill, has several differences. Indiana is attempting to add new requirements concerning the disposal of fetal tissue, as well as requiring abortion-seekers to obtain an ultrasound and receive state-designed brochures. The state argues these information campaigns are important for “informed consent”. One crucial similarity is that HR 1337 also requires doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges – the very same requirement just struck down in Texas.
Falk explained how the Indiana law differs, saying “Well they are not identical provisions on the books in Indiana; but what the Texas case tells us is that if restrictions are imposed specifically on abortion clinics and not other clinics, then they have to be examined very closely to determine if they really are designed to protect the life and health of the mother or if they are instead designed to throw a roadblock on the right to obtain an abortion. And Indiana, like many states, has attempted to impose new and more onerous regulations, and obviously, that has be filtered through the lens of this new case.”
The Indiana ACLU is not challenging HB 1337 on the undue burden standard, as was the case in Texas. Instead, they are arguing that the law doesn’t even meet the basic rational basis standard. That precedent says that, at the bare minimum, the government must show a rational reason for passing laws that may infringe on constitutional rights. In short, the ACLU says the law just doesn’t make any sense.
Falk explained the grounds for the ACLU’s lawsuit: “Well, we obviously challenged those. We didn’t challenge on the grounds that they were’undue burden;’ we challenged on the case that they are were not rational. One of the things that the case today focused on is what the State’s rationale- what is the justification for any restriction. And we argue that there really is no justification for the restrictions in the law concerning the disposal of fetal and embryonic tissue.”
The Indiana law is scheduled to take effect July 1st, but the ACLU is expecting a district court decision on whether to issue an injunction blocking the law before then. From there, the Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to be invoked when the district court begins hearing arguments. The ruling fell along traditional party lines in the Court, with justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas opposing the liberal-leaning majority.
