Planned Parenthood Files Suit Challenging New Indiana Abortion Law

3

Planned Parenthood Files Suit Challenging New Indiana Abortion Law
By Scott Roberts For Indiana Lawyer

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky challenging the recently enacted legislation that does not allow women to get abortions if the fetus may have a disability or potential diagnosis of a disability.

The suit also names Dr. Marshall Levine and Shauna Sidhom as plaintiffs in the case. Levine is licensed to perform abortions for Planned Parenthood, and Sidhom is a nurse practitioner.

The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against HEA 1337, which goes into effect July 1, and also challenges its constitutionality. The suit says preventing abortions solely for disability creates an undue burden on the right to obtain one and violates the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Treating fetal tissue after a first-trimester abortion differently than other medical material is “irrational” it says, and also violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

The bill also violates the First Amendment, the suit alleges, by compromising patients’ rights to choose. It also violates doctors’ and nurses’ rights by forcing them to provide information that violates patients’ First Amendment rights.

The suit names as defendants the Indiana State Department of Health commissioner, prosecutors of Marion, Lake, Monroe and Tippecanoe counties and the individual members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

3 COMMENTS

  1. Why must Indiana keep going though this idiocy? How much will this cost the state and how much will this demoralize women and families in a very stressful time of their lives. Does Indiana not understand the Federal constitution and Roe? Hoosiers are so quick to play the second amendment card. What happened to the rest of that document?

    • Because abortion is a horrible stain on American integrity. Perhaps it will be found legal to crush the head of a downs syndrome child while unborn, or suck an unborn girl out of the womb because she is not the prefered gender, but one will never be able to make a moral claim greater than clubbing a downs syndrome child to death or tossing a baby girl into a wood chipper. Yes, I am making an extreme example, but how can one justify the killing because the child is unborn?

      Abortion does not end stress, it adds to it. Hold any baby and convince me that killing it a few months earlier could have been an act of compassion.

      BTW, abortion is not in the constitution, firearms are.

Comments are closed.