265 F. Supp. 3d 859
S.D. Ind.2017Background
- PPINK (Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky) operates Indiana clinics that provide first-trimester surgical abortions; it challenged multiple provisions of HEA 1337 enacted March 24, 2016.
- HEA 1337 (Indiana) bars abortions sought solely because of fetal sex, race/ancestry, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of Down syndrome or other disability, and requires providers to report fetal sex and diagnostic information and to inform patients of the ban.
- HEA 1337 also changes fetal tissue disposition: if patients do not keep tissue, clinics must arrange interment or cremation (cremation at a crematory; simultaneous cremation permitted), and fetal tissue is excluded from the statutory definition of infectious waste.
- PPINK sought declaratory and injunctive relief; the district court previously granted a preliminary injunction and the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The State defended HEA 1337 on grounds of anti-discrimination aims, a legitimate interest in treating fetal remains like human remains and sanitary/dispositional concerns, and argued the statutes do not violate Roe/Casey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether anti-discrimination provisions that bar pre-viability abortions for certain reasons violate the Fourteenth Amendment | Such provisions unlawfully prohibit pre-viability abortions and impermissibly let the State examine and restrict a woman’s private decision | The law advances anti-discrimination and potential-life interests; new technology justifies regulation and Roe/Casey do not allow inquiry into a woman’s reasons | Court: Unconstitutional — pre-viability abortion right is categorical; State may not ban based on the woman’s reason |
| Whether the mandated informed-consent statement (informing patients of the ban) violates First Amendment rights | Compelled speech and compelled listening; unlawful because tied to the unconstitutional ban | Claimed as informational and tied to state interest; moot if ban is unconstitutional | Court: Unconstitutional as derivative of anti-discrimination provisions; injunction extends to this provision |
| Whether fetal tissue disposition requirements violate substantive due process / equal protection | No legitimate state interest; treating fetal tissue like human remains implies personhood contrary to Roe/Casey; law is irrational and arbitrary | Interest in treating fetal remains respectfully and ensuring humane/sanitary disposal; analogies to other statutes and cultural practices | Court: Unconstitutional — State lacks a legitimate interest in equating fetal tissue with human remains and the statute is not rationally related to its asserted purpose |
| Remedy — scope of relief requested (permanent injunction/declaratory judgment) | Seeks permanent injunction and declaration invalidating challenged provisions | State opposes | Court: Grants PPINK summary judgment; permanently enjoins enforcement of the anti-discrimination, information, and fetal disposition provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (establishes constitutional right to pre-viability abortion)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (reaffirms Roe; frames the state-vs.-liberty balancing around viability)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (applies Casey principles; discussed limits and assumptions about precedent)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (applies Casey principles in striking abortion regulation)
- Coe v. County of Cook, 162 F.3d 491 (7th Cir.) (recognizes mother’s strong pre-viability abortion right and that fetus is not a person under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Commissioner of Ind. State Dep't of Health, 699 F.3d 962 (7th Cir.) (Seventh Circuit treatment of Roe/Casey principles)