INDIANAPOLIS (AP) 鈥� An Indiana county judge ruled Wednesday against who are seeking to broaden access to the procedure under the near-total ban state lawmakers passed after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal protections in 2022.
The providers 鈥� including the regional Planned Parenthood affiliate 鈥� had sought a permanent injunction to expand the near-total ban's medical exemptions and to block its requirement that abortions can only be performed at hospitals.
Judge Kelsey Blake Hanlon, who conducted a in late May in southern Indiana鈥檚 Monroe County, denied the providers' request for the permanent injunction against both elements of the state's law, known as S.B. 1.
鈥淪ignificant and compelling evidence regarding the policy implications of S.B. 1 and its effect on medical professionals in particular was presented. However, the Court cannot substitute its own policy preferences for that of the Indiana General Assembly,鈥� wrote Hanlon, an elected Republican from a different county who was appointed as a special judge in the case.
Indiana became the after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections by in June 2022. Rare exceptions to the near-total ban include when the health or life of the mother is at risk as well as in cases of rape, incest and lethal fetal anomalies in limited circumstances.
The Indiana Supreme Court in June 2023, ending a broader legal challenge brought by the same plaintiffs, but said the state鈥檚 constitution protects a women鈥檚 right to an abortion when her life or health is at risk.
Indiana鈥檚 clinics stopped providing abortions ahead of the ban officially taking effect in August 2023.
The providers said that the ban鈥檚 exceptions for protecting health are written so narrowly that in practice, many doctors won鈥檛 end a pregnancy even when a woman鈥檚 condition qualifies under the statute. The state defended the statute and said it sufficiently protects women when health complications arise in pregnancy.
When asked Wednesday if they plan to appeal the ruling, the plaintiffs said they 鈥渁re still evaluating all options.鈥�
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a joint statement with the ACLU of Indiana and other plaintiffs that the court's ruling means "lives will continue to be endangered by Indiana鈥檚 abortion ban.鈥�
鈥淎lready, Hoosiers with serious health complications have been forced to endure unjustifiable suffering due to miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other pregnancy-related issues or leave the state to access appropriate care,鈥� the statement said.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita praised the judge鈥檚 ruling Wednesday. 鈥淚ndiana鈥檚 pro-life law is both reasonable and constitutional, and we鈥檙e pleased the Monroe County Circuit Court upheld it,鈥� he said in a statement.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Indiana did not immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment on the ruling.
In a 50-page order, Hanlon said providers gave hypothetical scenarios but did not identify a situation where the health and life exemption or the hospital requirement prevented a woman from obtaining an abortion.
Hanlon agreed with the state鈥檚 argument that the health and life exemption constitutionally protects pregnant patients with 鈥渟erious health risks,鈥� but acknowledged the ill-defined standard has been challenging for physicians in a 鈥減olitically charged environment鈥� and under the threat of criminal liability. However, Hanlon said physicians do not have to wait until a woman is 鈥渃linically unstable to provide care.鈥�
She wrote that some conditions outlined by the providers can be treated with interventions other than abortion depending on the severity of the health risk, such as medication, therapy and nutritional changes. She also rejected the argument from the providers that mental health conditions constitute serious health risks.
In rejecting the providers鈥� request to strike the hospital requirement, Hanlon said hospitals are better equipped to handle lethal fetal anomaly, rape, incest and serious health risks.
鈥淭he evidence demonstrates that many women receiving abortion care when they are seriously ill or at risk of becoming seriously ill will likely be receiving in-hospital care irrespective of the hospital requirement,鈥� she wrote.
__
Volmert reported from Lansing, Michigan.
Rick Callahan And Isabella Volmert, The Associated Press
