Indiana Court of Appeals upholds narrow order against abortion ban
A three-judge panel said the state has not proven a compelling interest in protecting life at the expense of one's religious beliefs. The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a narrow order against the state's abortion ban for people whose religious beliefs conflict with the law. The three-judge panel stated that the state had not proven a compelling interest in protecting life at the expense of one's sincerely-held religious beliefs. The ACLU of Indiana argued that the ban violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prohibits abortion under any circumstances. The only exceptions are up to 10 weeks in the case of rape or incest, and up to 20 weeks or fetal viability in cases of fatal fetal anomalies or to prevent serious health complications for the mother. The ruling is not final, but does not affect the underlying lawsuit, which has not yet gone to trial.
Được phát hành : một tháng trước qua Garrett Bergquist trong Politics
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — A three-judge panel on Thursday said the state has not proven a compelling interest in protecting life at the expense of one’s sincerely-held religious beliefs.
The order by the Indiana Court of Appeals upholds a trial court’s order that blocks Indiana’s abortion ban for people whose religious beliefs conflict with the law, and allows a lawsuit on those grounds to proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The ACLU of Indiana said this means the order protects anyone who chooses to join the lawsuit.
The lawsuit by four Jewish women and the group Hoosier Jews for Choice argues the ban violates Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA. The law prohibits abortion under any circumstances. The only exceptions are up to 10 weeks in the case of rape or incest, and up to 20 weeks or fetal viability in cases of fatal fetal anomalies, or to prevent serious health complications for the mother. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs argue the law contradicts Jewish beliefs, which hold that a pregnancy does not constitute separate life or a being with rights independent of the mother.
Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Leanna Weissman wrote the state did not prove a compelling interest in protecting life from the moment of fertilization.
“The General Assembly has declined to explicitly define human beings to include zygotes, embryos, or all fetuses,” Weissman wrote. “The Abortion Law also does not designate the exact point during pregnancy when the state’s interest in a zygote, embryo, or fetus becomes compelling.”
Weissman also called attention to the narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and medical complications, writing, “The state does not explain why a victim of rape or incest is entitled to an abortion, but women whose sincere religious beliefs direct an abortion are not. The state also does not explain how allowing an abortion of a “fetus diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly”—as is conditionally permitted by the Abortion Law—advances the state’s alleged compelling interest in protecting potential life.”
ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk said the ruling is a major victory, but it’s not final. He said the Indiana Supreme Court has the option whether or not to take up the case and make its own decision on the order. It also does not affect the underlying lawsuit, which has not yet gone to trial. Falk said the order blocking the ban only applies to anyone who is a member of the ACLU’s lawsuit, though he added more people can join the lawsuit based on religious belief and thus gain the order’s protection.
Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office, which represents the state in any litigation, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Chủ đề: Social Issues, Abortion