ILNews

Indiana wants ban on abortion pill law lifted

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana law that would require Planned Parenthood to stop performing drug-induced abortions at a Lafayette clinic or make significant upgrades to the facility wouldn't block women's access to the procedure, attorneys for the state contend.

The Indiana attorney general's office filed a brief late Monday supporting its request for summary judgment in the case. Both the state and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana asked U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson to rule in their favor after she issued a preliminary injunction in November blocking the 2013 law from taking effect.

The law would require clinics that only perform drug-induced abortions to meet the same standards as those that perform surgical abortions by adding a recovery room and surgical equipment and making other upgrades. While some Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana offer both procedures, the Lafayette clinic only performs drug-induced abortions.

The state's attorneys say that although the law might require some women to travel farther to obtain an abortion, that isn't illegal and the ACLU failed to show it would prevent anyone from seeking the procedure.

"The Supreme Court has never held that a woman is entitled to the abortion method of her choice," the state's attorneys argued.

The ACLU argued in its previous brief that the law would "irrationally" require clinics that offer medication-induced abortions to meet the same requirements as surgical clinics, whether or not they perform surgeries. But the law would not require doctor's offices that prescribe abortion pills to meet the same standards as long as abortion pills are not their main business, the group said. The ACLU said that violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

The state argued in its brief Monday that legislators have the constitutional power to treat abortion clinics and physicians' offices differently.

Betty Cockrum, the head of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, said if the law is allowed to take effect, women in the Lafayette area seeking a drug-induced abortion would have to travel more than an hour to Indianapolis or to Merrillville in northwest Indiana to obtain one, because clinics there offer both drug-induced and surgical abortions. That would create a barrier to abortion for women, the ACLU contends.

If the state wins the case, Cockrum said Planned Parenthood would have to decide whether to convert the clinic so it could offer surgical abortions or to stop offering abortions there. But Planned Parenthood does more in the interest of reproductive health and contraception than offer abortions, she said.

"We will not close the Lafayette health center," Cockrum said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT