An Indiana coalition that advocates for women’s reproductive rights is speaking out against proposed state legislation that would essentially ban all abortions.
House Bill 1134, called the “protection of life” bill, says that human life begins at conception and seeks to repeal state statutes authorizing and regulating abortion.
The bill “makes it illegal to kill an unborn child,” says Curt Nisly, R-Goshen, the bill’s author.
State law already says that human life begins at conception, “but our criminal code doesn’t follow through. House Bill 1134 “treats a baby in the early part of pregnancy the same as the later part of pregnancy.”
The bill has been assigned to the Public Policy committee, but as of Thursday, no hearing had been scheduled.
According to the Indiana Legislative Services Agency fiscal impact statement, the bill “redefines ‘human being’ for purposes of the criminal code to conform to the finding that human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”
It would “eliminate access to abortion services in the state,” says the agency.
The Health Access and Privacy Alliance opposes the bill and says it will set off a legal battle over the constitutional right of a woman’s privacy, “a question that has been settled law for more than 40 years and was upheld just last summer by the U.S. Supreme Court,” according to a statement.
“We believe in protecting women’s right to choose,” asid Reba Boyd Wooden, the alliance’s president. “Every year, the legislature comes up with bills to keep chipping away at it. HB 1134 attempts to basically outlaw all abortions in Indiana, which is absolutely unconstitutional.”
The alliance sent a letter to editors statewide last week alerting them to HB 1134 and other bills the group opposes because of their threat to women’s reproductive rights. Indiana currently prohibits most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The coalition comprises several groups that support women’s reproductive rights and includes the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, the League of Women Voters Indiana and Indiana NOW.
The HAPA coalition has concerns about other bills as well, including Senate Bill 118, which would require a pregnant woman to look at ultrasound imaging and listen to any fetal heart tones, even if she objects.
The Jan. 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision affirmed the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, but also set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters
HB 1134 “is definitely unconstitutional,” said Katie Blair, director of advocacy with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
That’s not deterring Hoosiers for Life, which promoted and helped design HB 1134, said Amy Schlichter, its executive director. “I feel it’s real important to protect pre-born Hoosiers,” she said.
Indiana code already states that human life begins at conception, and “we are challenging Indiana to protect that life,” she said. “All life is valuable.
Schlichter believes” Roe v. Wade “is a poor decision based on faulty evidence and faulty science. It should be challenged.”
There is some disagreement about the bill among anti-abortion groups.
Indiana Right to Life has not announced support for the bill.
Mike Fichter, Indiana Right to Life President and CEO, said in an email the organization is “focused on our legislative strategy that has been successful each year; our pro-life advances have led to abortions dropping to the lowest number since the mid-70s and have led to the closure of four Indiana abortion clinics in the last four years.
“We are giving our attention to legislation that ends state funding for any organization that does abortion training, cracking down on non-parental adults who take minors across state lines for abortions, and increasing health and safety standards at chemical abortion facilities.”
Micah Clark, executive director of the American Family Association of Indiana, suggests the bill “might be a little ahead of its time. I don’t think it would pass legal scrutiny, but it’s possible.”
He described it as a tactical debate among anti-abortion groups. Some want to push issues even if they know legislation will be challenged in court, while others believe that if it won’t pass legal scrutiny, it won’t advance the cause.
“It’s a good bill for political debate,” Clark said, although he doesn’t believe it will get a hearing.
Dawn Johnsen, Indiana University law professors, said HB 1134 is “clearly unconstitutional and for that reason alone should not be enacted.” A court would strike it down and it would be “hugely expensive for the state,” she said.
According to LSA, if bill opponents prevailed on a federal lawsuit — filed on claims the statute violated constitutionally protected civil rights — the state may be required to pay the legal bills of the plaintiffs.
In 2013 and 2015, Indiana paid the ACLU legal fees for similar types of cases in the amount of $170,342 and $122,945, respectively, according to an LSA fiscal analysis.
If HB 1134 passed, state laws dealing with murder and manslaughter would apply “in sometimes vague and unclear ways” at the moment of conception, Johnsen said.
It’s important to closely follow the bills through the legislative process, she said. Last year, a law imposing new abortion restrictions “moved really fast before people had a chance to react to their representatives.”
House enrolled Act 1337 banned abortions sought because the fetus has a disability, or because of its race or gender; ACLU of Indiana filed a federal lawsuit and obtained a preliminary injunction last summer. A final ruling is pending.
Other proposed bills this session try to craft new restrictions that will make abortion more difficult to obtain, Johnsen said.
House Bill 1128 requires that a pregnant woman be informed orally and in writing before a chemical abortion that the chemical abortion may be possibly arrested or reversed. HAPA says it forces health providers to give patients false information.
Senate Bill 404 would create additional restrictions in cases where minors want to use a judicial bypass option to obtain an abortion without parental consent.