Court of appeals judges hear abortion challenge arguments based on religious freedom
The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday heard oral arguments in a lawsuit over whether the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts those whose faith does not hold that life begins at conception from the state's abortion ban.
The hearing is the latest in a legal battle that erupted after Indiana legislators passed a near-total ban on abortion last year. Supporters of abortion rights are fighting back against what they see as an infringement on a pregnant person's fundamental right to make a health care decision. The majority of Indiana lawmakers, however, support placing severe restrictions on abortion.
A lawyer representing a group of Hoosiers argued that the abortion ban is based on the Christian belief that life begin at conception so those of other faiths should be exempt from the near-total ban. The state's lawyer rejected that argument, comparing such an ask to taxpayers who cite religious freedom to avoid payment.
It's unclear when the judges — Lloyd Mark Bailey, Melissa S. May and Leanna K. Weissmann — will issue a decision.
Five anonymous Hoosiers holding different religious beliefs and the group Hoosier Jews for Choice first sued for abortion access last September, as the state initially instituted its near-total abortion ban that only allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormalities, and life of the mother.
The judges pressed James Barta, the state's lawyer, multiple times to explain why there are exceptions for protecting life at conception when it comes to rape, incest, in vitro fertilization and life of the mother, but not for religious freedom.
"You have a Christian belief system that is different than a Jewish belief system that's different than a Muslim belief system," Weissmann said. "So how can the state mandate a policy that compels compelling interest based on a Christian belief system?"
Barta said previous legal rulings have established the state has a right to protect life at conception, regardless of religion. He added that legislators had to weigh different interests when passing the abortion law, but argued that any other exceptions should be decided by lawmakers.
"Those exceptions reflect that the legislature recognizes there are some ethical and moral imperatives when you have a pregnancy that's a product of rape or incest," he said.
The judges also pressed the lawyer for those seeking the exception, Ken Falk, legal director of ACLU Indiana, on the burden the abortion ban puts on the rights of the people he represents.
"None of them are currently pregnant. None of them are seeking an abortion. Where does the substantial burden come in?" Weissmann asked.
Falk said that the ban has changed their behaviors and lives. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs say they feel forced to abandon plans to have children or have an active sex life due to fears of dangerous or unwanted pregnancies.
"We're talking about one of the most fundamental burdens that one could impose on someone," he said. "We can go back to how we reacted to the United States hearing that China had a one child policy. How's that possible? That's an incredible burden on the human experience. And that's exactly what these women are facing."
The religious challenge was one of two legal efforts to reverse the ban. The first challenge, by abortion providers and the ACLU Indiana, temporarily blocked the ban by asserting the law was unconstitutional. That decision was eventually reversed earlier this year.
For Hoosiers, the question of access to abortion in Indiana has been confusing due to the legal back and forth. However, Indiana residents can travel to neighboring states, Ohio and Illinois, for abortion care.
Binghui Huang can be reached at 317-385-1595 and Bhuang@gannett.com
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Court of appeals hear abortion challenge based on religious freedom
