Not quite the win they think it is
- By John Krull, TheStatehouseFile.com
When the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the state’s draconian abortion ban, Hoosier opponents of reproductive rights did victory dances.
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita took a break from starting senseless fights and looking for ways to run for whatever office might be available to him. He had his office issued this statement:
“We celebrate this day—one long in coming, but morally justified. Thank you to all the warriors who have fought for this day that upholds LIFE.â€
U.S. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Indiana, also did some crowing. He’s running for governor.
“Life wins in Indiana. I’m proud that with today’s court decision, Indiana will continue to be a national leader for protecting the unborn and saving thousands of lives. I join the countless Hoosiers who helped win this victory for life in celebrating this historic day,â€Â his statement read.
Rokita and Braun—neither of whom is renowned as a deep thinker or devoted student—might have curtailed their celebrations.
Close readings of the court’s three opinions—the majority one, a concurring one, and a somewhat dissenting one—reveal the justices’ profound uneasiness with the issue of abortion and the hasty crusade by Indiana rightwing politicians to impose bans.
What the court firmly rejected was the broad argument that the Indiana constitution prohibits state government from adopting any restrictions on abortion at any time.
That shouldn’t be surprising.
Few if any rights are absolute.
We have, for example, rights to speak freely guaranteed by both the U.S. and Indiana constitutions. But those guarantees can’t prevent government officials from passing laws prohibiting people from texting while driving 80 miles per hour through a school zone.
The greater public has rights that must be balanced against those of the individual.
That’s a reality that escapes many of our radicalized lawmakers.
The court’s majority opinion recognizes this—and all but sends engraved invitations for future litigation regarding Indiana’s abortion ban. It says that, while the ban can’t be struck down simply on its face, there may be parts of it that do violate the Constitution.
This should trouble anti-abortion activists.
Following the ruling, Indiana Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, did some chest-thumping. He said the Indiana General Assembly set out during last year’s special session to craft a law that would stand up to a constitutional challenge.
Bray’s implication was that the lawmakers had acted deliberately and carefully.
If Bray said that with a straight face, he must have been smoking something.
When the legislators gathered to rush through the abortion ban following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, they moved with all the care and deliberation of hyperkinetic toddlers let loose in a bounce house without adult supervision.
They refused to listen to doctors and medical professionals. They turned deaf ears to lawyers and constitutional scholars pointing out problematic aspects of the law they were considering. They clamped on their earmuffs when business leaders expressed concern about how such a severe restriction of personal liberty would impact efforts to recruit talented workers and attract investors.
Perhaps most important, they made it clear they didn’t want to hear from the millions of women whose lives and health would be affected by their hasty persecution.
The only voices the lawmakers wanted to hear were the ones shouting amen.
Well, their law survived its first and easiest challenge.
But not without the state’s conservative Supreme Court justices expressing misgivings about the law the Indiana General Assembly rushed onto the books.
Tougher challenges await.
My old employer, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, has filed suit arguing that the abortion ban violates Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
RFRA, as it came to be known, also was a cause dear to many of the lawmakers who pushed through the abortion ban. It says that individual businesspeople have rights of conscience and thus may discriminate against gay people if they believe their faith calls them to do so.
The U.S. Supreme Court just supported such a concept, ruling that Colorado could not compel a website designer to provide services for a gay couple wishing to marry.
If the Indiana Supreme Court decides RFRA does not apply to the abortion ban, the state’s justices will be contending that website designers and bakers have rights of conscience but doctors and patients whose faith traditions do not prohibit abortion don’t have the same rights.
Interesting times we Hoosiers live in.
FOOTNOTE: John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. The views expressed are those of the author only and should not be attributed to Franklin College.
The City-County Observer posted this article with bias or editing
There surely has to be a less rabid liberal columnist available than this puppy. Perhaps I’ve misjudged the CCO.
CCO is not what it use to be.
Deep Thinkers? Do you think about what you write?
So your justification to ending the lives of the most vunerable among us as a form of birth control is that it is good for business? Do you even hear how horrible that sounds?
BUt what else can I expect from the conveyor of communism?
I can’t believe that a person responsible for the education of our youth has such a clouded opinion of ALL life. You should be ashamed to even be associated with higher education and especially journalism. No wonder the public has little confidence in media. It is because of people like you who push agendas and not simply the news.
So disappointed to see such a “learned†man spitting out justification for murder – yes, abortion is murder. In any other venue – life imprisonment or death penalty – it is because egregious acts have been committed against society. How is this murdering of children not equally egregious? You are entitled to your opinions even if they are wrong, and so are pro-life. I would like to see you write an article supporting the opposite view just to see if you can support views other than your own, with due respect to those who are solidly pro-life.
I agree. I wish there could be journalism that can be unbiased sometimes.
I also think there is some underlying issues that should be addressed, or at least acknowledged.
Potential parents with child bearing issues, worry that abortion relieves some potentual lifelong problems. Problems that can devastate entire existing families. That worry leads to other options they must now consider.
I think adoption related rights need a lot of work. The children being born need equal rights and representation. Right now adoption is not a good alternative for most.
This is real easy Krull. Move to Illinois with like thinkers to yourself. Your opinion does not mesh with Indiana’s!
Comments are closed.