In a recent ruling from Monroe County, a special judge has turned down Planned Parenthood's request to expand the exceptions of Indiana's near-total abortion ban. Judge Kelsey Hanlon concluded that the current law, Senate Bill 1, does not excessively burden residents' access to constitutionally protected abortion care; Planned Parenthood's lawsuit earlier this year raised concerns over SB 1's very narrow medical exceptions and the hospital-only requirement for conducting abortions, as reported by CBS4 Indy. Despite their efforts, Judge Hanlon determined there were no specific cases brought forth that fell outside the scope of the allowed exceptions that were also deemed necessary to prevent a serious health risk.
Following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Indiana quickly passed SB 1, going into effect in August 2023, this law does allow for abortions in the presence of substantial health risks to the pregnant woman or if the fetus has a lethal fetal anomaly also covering cases of rape or incest within the first 10 weeks after fertilization, but only abortions carried out in hospitals are legally permissible, this according to the details shared by ABC News. Despite Planned Parenthood presenting evidence on the serious nature of mental illness among perinatal women, the judge maintained that these conditions did not show that abortions were necessary for mental and emotional conditions.
The ACLU of Indiana, representing the abortion providers, argued that the law's exceptions are so narrowly defined that physicians might be reluctant to perform abortions, even when women meet the criteria within the statute, as per information from WTHR. The argument also emphasized that the ban does not consider conditions which may develop later in pregnancy, potentially exacerbating other health issues, yet the court dismissed the notion that the hospital requirement imposes a material burden on access to constitutionally protected abortion care.
While Judge Hanlon's decision acknowledges the complex policy implications and challenging environment for medical professionals, she stood by the statute, communicating that the court is not to "substitute its own policy preferences for that of the Indiana General Assembly," as ABC News reports, and Hanlon asserted that medical professionals are capable of applying the law's health and life exceptions, she went on to state that hospitals have developed guidelines to ensure compliance with SB 1, and though it's recognized the hospital requirement could increase the costs and travel needed for care, it did not by itself violate the constitution because of economic hardship.
As the providers possibly prepare for an appeal, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita hailed the ruling in support of the law. In a statement obtained by CBS4 Indy, Rokita affirmed, "Indiana’s pro-life law is both reasonable and constitutional, and we’re pleased the Monroe County Circuit Court upheld it."
