Indiana Appeals Court Upholds Injunction of Abortion Law for Religious Objectors
- April 12, 2024
An Indiana appeals court upheld April 4 a preliminary injunction blocking the state’s enforcement of its near-total abortion ban against plaintiffs who say the law violates their rights under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The appeals court concluded that the abortion ban likely amounted to a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’—five anonymous women and Hoosier Jews for Choice—exercise of religion. In addition, the state failed to show a compelling interest in prohibiting religiously motivated health care decision or that it employed the least restrictive alternative given other existing exemptions from the law in the case of rape or incest, when the fetus has a lethal anomaly, or to save the woman’s life.
The Indiana Court of Appeals also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class of “All persons in Indiana whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by [the Abortion Law] who need, or will need, to obtain an abortion and who are not, or will not be, able to obtain an abortion because of the [Law].”
However, the appeals court agreed with the state that the injunction was overbroad and remanded to the trial court to narrow its scope.
As a threshold issue, the appeals court found Hoosier Jews for Choice had associational standing to raise its members’ RFRA challenge to the abortion law.
The appeals court also held that plaintiffs’ claim was ripe for review. Although none of the plaintiffs are pregnant, the appeals court found they “presented evidence to support a substantial burdening of the exercise of their sincere religious beliefs in the form of altered sexual and reproductive patterns.”
The anonymous plaintiffs specifically alleged they are not attempting to become pregnant while the abortion law is in effect and have altered their sexual and reproductive practices as a result. Based on this evidence, the appeals court concluded plaintiffs had established an “actual controversy.” Plaintiffs also alleged an impending RFRA violation should they become pregnant, the appeals court added.
Next, the appeals court rejected the state’s argument that the proposed class was not definite.
“Plaintiffs share the view that their sincere religious beliefs require abortions that are prohibited by the Abortion Law. Although their religious beliefs may differ as to when abortions are mandated, varying religious beliefs among the class have not barred certification in numerous federal RFRA cases,” the appeals court pointed out.
Turning to the merits, the appeals court found that abortion could be “religious exercise” within the meaning of the RFRA. “The procurement of health insurance is not a mandatory religious ritual, either, but it was at the core of a RFRA violation in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby,” the appeals court observed.
“Plaintiffs’ claims, in fact, seem to be the other side of the Burwell coin. If a corporation can engage in a religious exercise by refusing to provide abortifacients—contraceptives that essentially abort a pregnancy after fertilization—it stands to reason that a pregnant person can engage in a religious exercise by pursuing an abortion," the appeals court added.
The appeals court also found that the state failed to establish a compelling interest in enforcing the abortion law against plaintiffs; and even if it did, the state did not show the abortion law was the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest.
The appeals court noted that the abortion law carves out in vitro fertilization from its scope and permitted abortions at all stages of gestation provided certain requirements are met. These exemptions undermine the state’s argument of a compelling interest in protecting life beginning at fertilization, the appeals court said.
The appeals court also sided with plaintiffs’ argument that the abortion law was not the least restrictive alternative given the existing exemptions for some abortions based on secular grounds. “A law is underinclusive when it provides exceptions for secular conduct that contravene the State’s asserted compelling interest to a similar or greater degree than religious conduct not subject to an exception,” the appeals court said.
In the appeals court’s view, the broader religious exemption that plaintiffs seek—i.e., that the pregnant woman’s health must have precedence—has the same foundation as the narrower exceptions that already exist in the abortion law. “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 appeals court said.
The appeals court also found the other factors for a preliminary injunction weighed in plaintiffs’ favor, including that they would be irreparably harmed by the loss of their religious freedoms guaranteed by the RFRA.
The appeals court did agree with the state that the injunction was too broad because it could enjoin future government action that may not violate the RFRA. The appeals court remanded to the trial court for entry of a more tailored preliminary injunction.
Individual Members of the Med. Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, No. 22A-PL-2938 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2024).