ILNews

Federal judge blocks Indiana abortion-drug law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge Tuesday granted an injunction blocking enforcement of an Indiana law that would have required Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortion-inducing medications to also meet the requirements of clinics that perform surgical abortions.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued the state and won a preliminary injunction against Senate Enrolled Act 371 that was signed into law May 1 by Gov. Mike Pence.

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis ruled Planned Parenthood was likely to prevail on its pleading that Indiana Code § 16-18-2-1.5(a)(2) violates equal-protection guarantees because it divides providers of medication abortions into two groups – abortion clinics and physicians offices – and places different requirements on them.

In the case of Planned Parenthood’s Lafayette clinic, the law required the clinic to meet the same physical plant requirements of facilities that perform surgical abortions, even though that clinic doesn’t do so.

“The State has not presented a rational basis for distinguishing between medication abortion providers in this way, particularly when considering the statutory ambiguity between the terms ‘abortion clinic’ and ‘physician’s office,’” Magnus-Stinson wrote in granting a preliminary injunction in Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. v.; Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health, et al., 1:13-cv-1335-JMS-MJD.

According to the judge, without an injunction, Planned Parenthood would have to determine whether it would cease providing abortion-inducing pills or modify the Lafayette facility. “Given (Planned Parenthood’s) strong likelihood of success on the merits of its equal protection claim, the Court concludes that the balancing of harms favors issuing a preliminary injunction,” she wrote.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office defended the statute and in a statement after the ruling noted that Planned Parenthood didn’t prevail on other claims for injunctive relief.

“This new law reflects the policy judgment of Indiana legislators elected by our citizens.  The Court’s decision faulting the law for treating nonsurgical abortion clinics different from physicians’ offices must be thoroughly reviewed. Because of the narrow ruling, we will consult with our clients and decide how next to proceed,” Zoeller 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT