On Thursday, March 5, a Marion County Superior Court judge ruled that religious exemptions must be allowed, creating a major exception to Indiana’s abortion law. The decision brought forth numerous responses both in favor and in opposition. A few of those responses appear below.
Indiana Right to Life president responds to judge’s court order
Submitted by Indiana Right to Life
Indiana Right to Life President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Fichter issued this statement Friday, March 6 on Thursday’s late-day decision from the Marion County Superior Court, ruling that abortion is a religious right.
“For the court to rule that taking the life of an unborn child is an exercise of religious freedom is deeply distressing – and a perversion of the law’s intent.
“Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act was never intended to equate taking the life of an unborn child with religious expression in our state. While this current injunction is limited to the plaintiffs in the case only, if it withstands challenge, it will be exploited so anyone claiming a spiritual belief, even if personal and non-theistic, can justify taking a child’s life.
“We are encouraged by Attorney General Todd Rokita’s immediate move to appeal this injunction and pray it will be stayed during the appeal process.
“Indiana Right to Life will continue in its work to make Indiana a model state in providing compassionate support for pregnant moms and protections for their unborn babies.”
A copy of the ruling can be found at this link.
AG Todd Rokita appeals ruling
By TIM SPEARS
WISH-TV | wishtv.com
Rokita
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has appealed a Marion County court decision granting religious exceptions to the state’s near-total abortion ban.
Last Thursday’s order creates an exception to Indiana’s abortion restrictions if terminating a pregnancy aligns with a woman’s “sincere religious beliefs.” The Republican attorney general’s filing to appeal the order looks to bypass the Indiana Court of Appeals and take the issue to the Indiana Supreme Court.
“Disappointed and sad by it because I thought we were headed in the right direction,” Noblesville mother Kim Wright said outside an Indianapolis Planned Parenthood.
Wright is one of a handful of anti-abortion protesters with Sidewalk Advocates for Life, who demonstrate outside the building every week because of their religious views that abortion is murder.
“I believe that all human beings are created in the image of God and thus have the right to be born,” Wright said.
The state’s abortion law that passed in 2022 already provided exceptions in situations of rape, incest, when it’s necessary to avoid a “serious health risk” to the mother, and when there’s a diagnosed “lethal fetal anomaly” that would lead to the child’s death within three months of birth.
“Using religion as a reason [to access abortion] is almost mind-boggling,” Larry Kunkel of Sidewalk Advocates for Life said.
The Marion County judge, Christina Klineman, concluded in her ruling that if Indiana provides any exceptions to its abortion law, it can’t avoid providing religious exceptions:
“The state’s articulated interest is in ‘protecting prenatal life.’ The fact that the abortion law expressly allows for abortion in other circumstances … demonstrates the lack of a compelling interest in ‘protecting life’ under all circumstances.”
The ACLU of Indiana filed the class-action lawsuit leading to the new religious exception, which also covers women who do not follow an organized religion.
Legal Director Ken Falk of the ACLU told News 8 that abortion providers will need to figure out a way to certify religious exceptions. It could be similar to the way some jurisdictions evaluate religious exceptions for certain vaccines.
“This is hardly something unusual,” Falk said.
Stevie Pactor, the senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Indiana, said in a statement that Thursday’s “ruling is a recognition that religious freedom protects people of many faiths and beliefs, not just those favored by the state.”
Outside the Planned Parenthood, surrounded by her three children, Wright did not understand how any religion would sanction abortions.
“If people are using religion to get an abortion, then they are not following a religion,” Wright said.
Even as faith drives Wright to protest, faith may be the reason others can access the thing she’s protesting.
This story was originally published by WISH-TV at wishtv.com/news/i-team-8/indiana-attorney-general-appeals-abortion-ruling-allowing-religious-exceptions.
Tallian applauds court order
Submitted by Indiana Democratic Party
Tallian
Indiana Democratic Party Chair Karen Tallian released the following statement on Thursday, March 5 on a state court blocking Indiana’s abortion ban (SEA 1, 2022) for those with a religious exemption to the law.
“No one should support forced pregnancy,” Tallian said. “Countless Hoosier women have had to cross state lines to receive care or risk their lives and religious beliefs because of Indiana’s extreme abortion ban. This court order is a positive step for women across Indiana – but this ban remains in place outside of religious exemptions. Indiana’s near-total abortion is completely out of step with everyday Hoosiers and I encourage the General Assembly and AG Rokita not to appeal this decision.”
Priests for Life director: religious freedom ruling on abortion will fall
Submitted
Priests for Life National Director Frank Pavone issued the following statement Friday, March 6 in reaction to an Indiana judge’s ruling that religious freedom includes the right to abort a child.
“Religious freedom has limits, as does any fundamental right when the state preserves a compelling interest with the least restrictive means,” Pavone said.
“You can’t fly an airplane into a building while crying out in prayer to God. And as courts in the United States have already pointed out, the state would not be infringing on the freedom of religion if it prohibited child sacrifice on the altar or restricted the handling of poisonous snakes by Christians who want to take Jesus’ words literally about handling poisonous snakes.
“The state can act to protect the health and lives of citizens. This ruling will not stand.”