A lawsuit for an additional exemption to Indiana’s near-total abortion ban allowing it as a religious right will head straight from a county courtroom to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order Friday granting the state’s request to move the case directly to the Supreme Court and scheduling oral arguments for Sept. 10, according to court records.
The state argued that the Court of Appeals already made rulings in the “principal issues in this case.” Further, Marion County Judge Christina Klinerman used the appeals court’s ruling in her own ruling, according to court records.
“The time is ripe for this Court to decide whether the Court of Appeals’ original analysis is correct. Neither the law nor the public would benefit from delaying this case’s final resolution,” according to court records.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said in a post on X/Twitter that the county court’s decision “fundamentally misunderstands religious liberty by claiming it confers a right to abortion.”
“We look forward to continuing our defense of Indiana’s pro-life laws in front of the Indiana Supreme Court,” Rokita said.
Amalia Shifriss, co-chair of Hoosier Jews For Choice, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that the organization has confidence in its ACLU lawyers to continue to work “tirelessly on our behalf, on behalf of a birthing person’s right to choose, and on behalf of true religious freedom.”
“We know we are on the right side of justice, as this abortion ban does violate religious freedom for many people, and (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) must apply to all, not just certain religion/s chosen by those currently in power,” Shifriss said.
The ACLU of Indiana said in a statement it was disappointed that the state continues to fight the case.
“Hoosiers do not lose their right to religious freedom when they become pregnant. We look forward to continuing to protect the right to religious exercise for Hoosiers as this case moves forward,” the ACLU said in the statement.
Klinerman issued the ruling March 5 finding that “there is significant public interest in ensuring the religious freedom of all citizens.”
“This permanent injunction is meant simply to capture those rare instances where an abortion does not fall within the enumerated exceptions but is likewise a necessary religious exercise,” according to the ruling.
Two anonymous women — a Jewish woman and spiritual woman — and Hoosier Jews for Choice filed a lawsuit about three years ago, arguing that Indiana’s abortion ban goes against the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
In the case, the Jewish woman argued that her religion teaches that “life begins when a person takes their first breath after being born.” Her Jewish faith also teaches that the health of a pregnant woman is more important than the life of an embryo or fetus, according to court documents.
“Therefore, according to her Jewish beliefs, if her health or wellbeing — physical, mental or emotional — were endangered by a pregnancy, a pregnancy-related condition, or a fetal anomaly, she must terminate the pregnancy,” according to court records.
The woman, who previously had an abortion, would like to attempt to have another child, but a pregnancy might “seriously endanger her health.”
“(She) believes that her religion instructs her that she cannot imperil her life in that way given that Jewish law instructs her that a fetus is not a life,” according to court records.
The second plaintiff is a woman without a specific religion, “but has personal religious and spiritual beliefs that guide her life, including her moral and ethical practices.” She does not believe that life begins at conception, but that a fetus is a part of the body of a mother, according to court records.
The woman, who has had an abortion in the past, said she’s had less intimacy with her husband for fear of an unintended pregnancy, according to court records.
“Because of her religious belief in spiritual and physical autonomy over her own body, including a fetus, she believes it is her spiritual obligation to determine whether to remain pregnant,” according to court records. “As a matter of her religious beliefs, she believes that if a pregnancy or the birth of another child would not allow her to fully realize her humanity and inherent dignity, she should terminate that pregnancy, and this is so in circumstances that would not be permitted by statute.”
The Hoosier Jews for Choice argued in court that many members of the organization have been altering their sexual practices, birth control usage, and family planning since Indiana passed its near-total abortion ban and their fear of becoming pregnant, according to court records.
The state argued that the lawsuit lacks standing and its “claims are unripe,” according to court records. The state also argued that the abortion ban penalizes the abortion provider not the person receiving the abortion, “but this is a false flag,” according to court records.
Further, the state argued that plaintiffs in the case have to prove a person seeking an abortion as a religious exercise has no “alternative means” of following their religious beliefs, according to court records.
But, the court ruled that the “alternative means” argument assumes something that the case did not seek, which is “the right to abortion access under all circumstances,” according to court records.
“The court finds that the threatened injury to plaintiffs outweighs harm to the defendants because the abortion law already has exceptions and there has been no showing that this limited exception for religious exercise would somehow explode the number of abortions sought in contradiction of their stated interest,” according to court records.
