High Court Hears Appeal on Indiana Abortion Law
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in an appeal to decide whether abortion clinics in the state have a right to further pursue their challenge against the state’s abortion waiting period law.
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in an appeal to decide whether abortion clinics in the state have a right to further pursue their challenge against the state’s abortion waiting period law.
An Indiana law passed in 1995 requires women who seek an abortion to receive counseling and information about medical risks, alternatives to abortion, and access to medical assistance. After they receive this information, women must wait at least 18 hours before they can receive an abortion.
Legal challenges to the law kept it from being enacted until 2003. However, court challenges continue to be brought against the law.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The Clinic for Women Inc., an abortion provider in Marion County, Indiana, is the main plaintiff among other abortion providers that are arguing against the law in the current case. Although a judge had previously dismissed their case, an appeals court overturned the ruling, saying that the clinic and other abortion providers have a right to continue their challenge.
Opponents of the bill claim that the law imposes a “material burden” on a woman’s ability to receive an abortion. They argue that women who live far away from abortion clinics will be less likely to get an abortion because of the extra effort needed to visit the clinic twice - once to receive counseling and once to receive the procedure.
In the current case, the Clinic for Women Inc. is seeking the ability to continue their legal challenge against the law. Indiana Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Falk represented the clinics, arguing that the abortion waiting period law infringes upon women’s rights to privacy, which is protected under the state constitution.
Deputy Attorney General Thomas Fisher, who is defending the state law, contended that the state constitution does not explicitly talk about privacy rights, and therefore, Falk’s argument cannot be applied to the case. Fisher also cited the responsibility of lawmakers to pass laws they find necessary for the safety and well-being of the public, and warned the courts about overstepping their judiciary role.
Supporters of the bill further point out that the waiting period allows women to make an informed, well-thought out decision regarding abortion.
Judge Frank Sullivan, Jr. is hearing the case. The Supreme Court will decide if the clinics may continue to challenge the law in the courts.
