Last week, Indiana passed an abortion ban, known as Senate Bill 1, which Gov. Eric Holcomb (R-IN) immediately signed into law. There has been much talk about the state being the first to adopt a near-total abortion ban since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson June 24, which fell over Roe v. Wade, thus sending the abortion decision back to the individual states. Formerly Indiana it was a kind of place designated for abortionincluding the case of a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, although under Ohio law she did not have to travel out of state for the procedure.
But not as much was said about the opposition to the bill, which came from seemingly unlikely sources, including leading voices in the pro-life movement. SB1, especially before its passage through the Indiana House of Representatives and the amendment process, was something of a mess of exceptions.
Last month, the Indiana state chapter of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released a statement opposing the bill.
The national right to life is equivalent to the Indiana right to life
in Opposing Indiana SB 1
https://t.co/DzFfaNRwLd— NRLC Communications (@nrlcomm) July 29, 2022
AND NRLC statement To read:
National Right to Life, along with its Indiana affiliate, Indiana Right to Life, opposes SB 1.
Indiana’s SB 1 is a bogus bill that would do the opposite of what its supporters claim. SB 1 would not protect life and would endanger defenseless women and their unborn children.
SB 1 was developed without consulting any state, local or national pro-life group or expert. Instead, SB 1 was drafted based on advice from organizations and experts that have made abortion on demand part of their mission.
SB 1 contains vague language and ill-defined terms that would actually protect abortion instead of protecting unborn children. SB 1 would also undermine existing protections for unborn children with disabilities.
The pro-life movement is calling on pro-life lawmakers in the Indiana State Legislature to reject this travesty of a bill.
How transferred by a state-owned entitywith additional emphasis on highlighting more specific issues with exceptions, from rape and incest, health exemptions, to fetal defects and the definition of abortion:
Indiana Right to Life remains opposed to SB1. While we are encouraged to add language giving the attorney general the authority to prosecute illegal abortion cases, SB1 contains a vague definition of the maternal exception that could easily be exploited to cover most abortions. An amendment to facilitate solve this problem was defeated last night, with the facilitate of many Republican senators who had previously indicated to voters in candidate surveys that they supported no exceptions or only maternal life. Bill SB1 does not require reporting rape claims to the police, depriving women of the facilitate they need while allowing perpetrators to avoid justice and seek other victims. Additionally, SB1 redefines abortion so that the intentional killing of a fully viable, severely disabled unborn child will no longer be considered an abortion under Indiana law. This change in definition will open the floodgates to funding for these types of procedures while creating a circumvention of Indiana’s ban on discriminatory abortion based solely on disability and Indiana’s ban on trading in the body parts of aborted fetuses, all because these women are legally killed and the children will not be already called abortion. For anyone who might argue that this is an abortion ban, we would simply point to the section of SB1 relating to up-to-date rules for existing and future abortion clinics in Indiana. This is why we didn’t wait 50 years to completely reverse Roe vs. Wade. We oppose SB1.
This came a few days later July 25 press release from the organization, with even stronger words from NRLC President Carol Tobias, who emphasized that “the bill is a complete disaster.” Moreover, when it comes to “condemning the pro-life movement[ing] what this bill is,” she called it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing aimed at expanding abortion on demand in Indiana.”
Additionally, a statement appeared and link to analysis from NRLC general counsel James Bopp Jr., who warned that “a careful legal analysis of SB 1 reveals that SB 1 uses flawed language in almost every provision, lacks necessary protections, and lacks any effective enforcement mechanism, resulting in abortion on task.”
Indiana’s Right to Life also was distributed via email on July 22, highlighting concerns about the bill, which would allow later abortions to continue, limits criminal penalties, requires new rules for current and future abortion facilities, and “numerous instances of unclear language, that will cause abortion providers to use to continue abortions.”
Ultimately, Indiana Right to Life softened its stance after, as noted, amendments were made to the law that included stricter maternal health exceptions.
When it comes to health exceptions, it is worth highlighting the concerns that pro-lifers had about this Doe v. Bolton, an accompanying matter Roe v. Wade, opened the door to elective abortions in the United States up to birth. Exceptions introduced by the Court in Doe it can mean whatever the provider and the woman wanted it to mean, including mental and emotional health; anything related to the “well-being” of a woman.
Within strict limits Roe AND Doe, women had abortions later in pregnancy for the same socioeconomic reasons that they might have had abortions early in pregnancy.
An updated statement from Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter on Aug. 5, when the bill was finally signed into law, noted that the affiliate “passively applauded[ed] Members of the House, those members of the House who support the amendment, for doing everything in their power to limit exceptions to SB1.” Ultimately, they “cannot fully support the revised SB1.”
As explained in the full statement included in the emailed press release:
“Indiana Right to Life believes significant changes to SB1 in the House of Representatives provide new hope that more than 95% of Indiana’s 8,414 abortions will end if it becomes law. The House amendments would make Indiana abortion clinics a thing of the past and require abortions under certain circumstances to be performed at hospitals or hospital-owned surgical centers. The House also tightened the language on the maternal life exception, limited abortion to ten weeks in cases of rape or incest, and limited abortion for fatal fetal defects to 20 weeks.
While we are disappointed that the amendment limiting abortion to the mother’s life only did not pass on a roll call vote, we applaud those House members who support it for doing everything they can to limit SB1’s exceptions. We will continue to work to build consensus in the future that every human life should be valued, regardless of how it was conceived.
While we cannot fully support the amended SB1 bill due to exceptions for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies, we acknowledge that the path forward is either the ability to end the vast majority of abortions in Indiana, starting with the mid-term closure of Indiana abortion clinics – September or allowing all abortions to continue under current law as women from Ohio, Kentucky and other states travel to Indiana for abortions. We urge every legislator to prayerfully consider how their vote will impact the path Indiana is currently taking.”
Ultimately, the bill retained exceptions for rape, incest and fatal fetal defects.
Regarding the health exception, bill text mentions “solemn health risks”. According to the text of the bill, “this means that in the reasonable medical judgment there is a condition that has complicated the health of the mother and requires an abortion to prevent death or a solemn risk of significant and irreversible physical impairment of major bodily functions.” The text goes on to explain that this refers to physical health because it “does not include mental or emotional conditions. The existence of a medical condition cannot be determined based on the allegation or diagnosis that a woman will engage in conduct that is intended to result in her death or bodily harm.”
The law will enter into force on September 15, and then abortion facilities will actually be forced to close their doors, because abortions will only be able to be performed in hospitals or hospital outpatient centers.
In the post-Roe In America, the NRLC advises lawmakers to pass laws banning abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
While SB1 may not be an outright ban on abortion—far from it—its legislative path could nevertheless offer a compelling view of how states seek to ban abortion now that the Supreme Court has once again given them the authority to do so.
