INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that individuals with religious exemptions are exempt from Indiana’s near-total abortion ban, agreeing with an earlier trial court ruling. .
In an opinion released Thursday, the court unanimously agreed and said the preliminary injunction would be affirmed in this case. This comes after a lawsuit was filed seeking to make abortions available to women of “genuinely religious faith” in 2022, before the abortion ban goes into effect.
In some cases, this could conflict with exceptions outlined in Section 1 of the Senate Enrollment Act, the state’s near-total abortion ban that went into effect in August 2023. The bill, passed in August 2022, bans all abortions in the state except for three. exception.
- In reasonable medical judgment, performing the abortion is necessary to prevent a significant risk of death, or significant or serious and irreversible disability of a major bodily function, or a “health or life exception.” If it is determined that
- When a pregnant woman is diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality
- If a pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest.
“We conclude that the Hoosier Jewish Movement has associational status, that Plaintiffs’ claims are ripe, and that certification as a class action is not an abuse of discretion,” the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion states. It is stated that. “While we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief, because the preliminary injunction prohibits enforcement of abortion laws in a manner that does not violate RFRA; It is too broad. We therefore affirm, but remand, the narrower injunction.”
The ACLU of Indiana filed a class action lawsuit in September 2022 alleging that SEA One violated Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law prohibits government action to interfere with an individual’s religious activities “unless the government can demonstrate that it has a compelling reason to do so and uses the least restrictive means available.” .
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including five anonymous Indiana women and the Hoosier Jews for Choice group, reportedly believe that their “sincere religious beliefs…are illegal under the law.” “Instructing women to seek abortions in their pregnancies (possibly).” opinion. The class action lawsuit sued all individuals affected by the ban based on their religious beliefs.
The plaintiffs also argue that Indiana has “no compelling interest in preventing these religiously motivated health care decisions, and even if a compelling interest existed, the abortion law is the most restrictive way to advance that interest.” “It is not a suitable method,” he said.
In a written opinion, the court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims are entitled to move forward, and while there may be differences in views and interests regarding abortion, this ruling does not affect the group’s position. This is consistent with the federal government’s decision. The opinion also said the claims were ripe, said the bill could impose a “substantial” burden on the plaintiffs’ religious practice, and certified the class action nature of the case.
The court ruled in its preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs had “demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success” based on their RFRA claims, indicating that abortion constitutes a religious act.
The opinion also said Indiana has not shown that SEA One is the “least restrictive means of furthering” a compelling interest, and that Indiana has not shown a “legitimate and compelling” interest that begins with conception. He even said that there was no such thing. In this case it is SEA One.
However, in its opinion, the court sought a more limited preliminary injunction after the state argued it lacked the specificity required by Indiana law.
In a separate but concurring opinion, Justice L. Mark Bailey said that individuals should rely on their own conscience and beliefs to make decisions “without undue interference from the state,” and that legislation He emphasized that people “don’t have the ability to define when life begins.”
“Despite the overwhelming majority of members of Congress who have never given birth, virtually all pregnancies in this state must end in birth, despite the enormous burden on women and girls. “I’m giving orders,” he said. “They did so not on the basis of science or viability, but on the overarching claim that they were protectors of ‘life’ from the moment of conception. In my view, this is a Hoosier Some, but certainly not all, families have adopted a religious perspective.The least we can hope for is to encourage the remaining Hoosiers of childbearing capacity to act according to their conscience and religious beliefs. be given the opportunity to do so.
Ken Faulk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, praised the appellate court’s opinion Thursday in a statement.
“For many Hoosiers, being able to obtain an abortion based on their sincerely held religious beliefs is necessary,” Faulk said. “The burden placed on these people by Indiana’s abortion ban is absolute and life-altering. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the religious freedom of all Hoosiers. is clear, and today’s Court of Appeal decision reflects that clear direction.”
The Indiana Court of Appeals’ full opinion can be found below.
This story will be updated as more information becomes available.
