Indianapolis – On Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court considered whether the state’s near‑total abortion ban infringes on the religious liberty of plaintiffs who claim their faith requires access to abortion in certain circumstances. The case, brought by Hoosier Jews for Choice and two anonymous plaintiffs, could set a precedent for other states with similar abortion restrictions and religious‑freedom statutes.
Background of the lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed in September 2022, shortly after Indiana enacted one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Plaintiffs argue that the ban, which includes limited exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies and threats to the pregnant person’s life, fails to accommodate religious exemptions.
One plaintiff, a Jewish woman, terminated a pregnancy in March 2022 after a prenatal test revealed a severe chromosomal defect. Under Jewish law, life is considered to begin at birth, and the health of the pregnant woman takes precedence over the unborn child. She says the ban forced her to alter her marital intimacy to avoid future pregnancies.
The second plaintiff does not affiliate with a specific religion but cites a belief in a supernatural power and personal bodily autonomy. She is married with two children and says the ban compelled her to reduce physical intimacy with her husband, which she views as an infringement on her spiritual convictions.
Arguments from both sides
Attorney Kenneth Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, contended that Indiana is directly violating the plaintiffs’ religious rights. He emphasized that the state already provides limited exceptions and should therefore include broader religious exemptions. Falk also warned that the plaintiffs have already suffered harm by changing their behavior to comply with the law.
Indiana Solicitor General James Barta countered that the plaintiffs lack standing because they are not currently pregnant and therefore are not facing an immediate abortion decision. Barta maintained that the state has a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, stating, “Our nation’s long tradition of respect for religious exercise has never been understood to encompass a right to intentionally destroy life—any more than a right to mistreat children.”
Judicial considerations
During oral arguments, Justice Geoffrey Slaughter asked whether a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would create a de facto “abortion on demand” based on religious claims. Falk responded that the state would need to assess the sincerity of each claimant’s belief.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush pushed back on the standing requirement, noting that the case has already lasted more than four years—longer than a typical pregnancy. She expressed concern about lumping disparate religious beliefs together, saying, “I’m having a hard time with the layers of hypotheticals… I don’t see how it’s right to treat an amorphous group of believers as a single category.”
Potential outcomes
If the justices dismiss the case for lack of standing, the plaintiffs may refile the lawsuit later. A dismissal on the merits would effectively end the challenge, though it could not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the issue concerns state law.
The justices are expected to issue a ruling in the coming months. A decision favoring the plaintiffs could influence similar challenges in other states that have enacted strict abortion bans alongside robust religious‑freedom statutes.
Community reaction
Stevie Pactor, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Indiana, noted that observers nationwide are watching the case closely. “There was a feeling of frustration, anger and helplessness after the Dobbs decision,” Pactor said, adding that many people are seeking “bright spots, moments of hope” in the ongoing legal battles over reproductive rights and religious liberty.
Original reporting: The Connecticut Mirror — read the source article.
