Monroe County special judge denies request for expansion of Indiana abortion ban exceptions

MONROE COUNTY, Ind. –A special judge in Monroe County has denied Planned Parenthood’s request for an expansion the exceptions included in Senate Bill 1, Indiana’s near-total abortion ban.

According to a ruling filed on Wednesday by Kelsey Hanlon, a special judge in Monroe County’s circuit court, Hanlon said that the law does not burden the rights of Indiana residents in regards to their access to constitutionally protected abortion care. The ruling was decided after a trial and a review of multiple documents filed earlier this year.

This comes after Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers filed a lawsuit earlier this year , asking a Monroe County judge to broaden the scope of SB 1 to include additional medical exceptions and to block the hospital-only requirement.

According to previous reports , SB 1 was signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb in August 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade earlier that year. The bill, which did not go into effect until August 2023, prohibits all abortions in the state of Indiana except for:

• In the case a physician determines that an “abortion is necessary when reasonable medical judgment dictates that performing the abortion is necessary to prevent any serious health risk to the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman’s life.”
• In the case a physician determines that the fetus has a “lethal fetal anomaly,” before the earlier of viability or twenty (20) weeks of post-fertilization age.
• In the case the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, an abortion can be performed during the first 10 weeks of post-fertilization.

An amended complaint in November alleged that SB 1 “unnecessarily restricted” access to care in Indiana because women may want abortions for health reasons “that may not meet the limited exception for serious health risks set out in SB 1.” The complaint also alleged that the law’s hospital requirement is unconstitutional because it “increases the cost of abortion and may not reduce access to abortion.”

In her ruling, Hanlon said that the plaintiffs in the case did not identify a situation where the abortion would fall outside of SB 1’s exceptions and be “necessary” to guard against a serious health risk.

Hanlon said that the only types of conditions categorically excluded under SB 1’s exceptions are mental/emotional conditions. While the judge said that the plaintiffs presented “compelling evidence regarding the serious nature of mental illness for perinatal women,” she said they did not show how the conditions constitute serious health risks or that abortion is “necessary” for mental and emotional conditions.

“The court is not tasked with determining the wisdom of SB 1,” the documents said “Rather, the court limits its analysis to whether SB 1 prevents patients from exercising a constitutional right to protect themselves against serious health risks by materially burdening access to abortions necessary to address that risk.”

Hanlon also said that medical professionals have proven themselves to be able to understand and apply the law’s health and life exception requirements, stressing that hospitals have developed guidance, procedures and appropriate consultations to ensure that the law is being followed.

In regards to the hospital requirement, Hanlon said that the plaintiffs have not shown that the hospital requirement is burdensome, even though it could increase the cost/travel required for care.

“Even assuming all women seeking abortion care will face economic hardship in doing so, a law does not violate the constitution solely because it directly or indirectly results in economic hardship,” the ruling said.

Ultimately, Hanlon said the plaintiffs did not show that the law “burdens the rights of any specific patient or well-defined class of patients to access constitutionally protected abortion care.”

“Plaintiffs have not shown an instance where an abortion is necessary to treat a serious health risk but would also fall outside of the health and life exception,” the ruling said. “Additionally, plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the hospital requirement is materially burdensome to constitutionally protected abortion access, nor that it fails rational basis review as to statutorily authorized (but not constitutionally protected) abortions.”

In a statement surrounding the ruling from Indiana Right to Life President and Chief Executive Office Mike Fichter, he said that ruling “strongly affirms Indiana’s right to limit abortions.”

“The limits in Indiana law have been highly effective in ending the killing of over 9,000 babies per year and stopped the abortion profiteers from making millions at the expense of women and their babies,” he said in the statement. “The Indiana Supreme Court has already ruled Indiana’s law is constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in its 2022 Dobbs ruling the right for states to determine abortion law. As abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood continue to seek ways to undermine Indiana law, we will remain focused on helping Indiana become a model state in showing compassion for pregnant mothers and providing protection for unborn babies.”

In a statement from Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, he said:

Indiana’s pro-life law is both reasonable and constitutional, and we’re pleased the Monroe County Circuit Court upheld it. This is another huge win for life and no matter how many times Planned Parenthood tries to sue and push forward their culture of death, we will continue fighting for mothers, fathers, and the unborn.

Rokita

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to Fox 59.