Appeals Court Restores Several Indiana Abortion Restrictions

by Joseph K. Clark

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’sIndiana’selemedicine consultations between doctors and women seeking abortions and several other abortion restrictions are back in force after a federal appeals court set aside a judge’s rjudge’shat they were unconstitutional.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a 2-1 ruling Wednesday that allows Indiana to continue enforcing those laws while the court considers an entire appeal of the case.

It said District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker’s Barker’sast month was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court decisions and reinstated Indiana’sIndiana’scine ban, along with state laws requiring in-person examinations by a doctor before medication-induced abortions can be performed and a prohibition on second-trimester abortions outside of hospitals or surgery centers.

 Abortion Restrictions

“Plaintif” s contend, and the district court found, that developments in videoconferencing make it possible to dispense with in-person meetings, that improvements in medicine make the use of hospitals or surgical centers unnecessary, and that nurses are competent to approve and monitor medication-induced abortions,” the rul” ng said. “The dist “ICT court concluded that these findings permit it to depart from the holdings of earlier cases. Yet, the Supreme Court insists that it alone has the authority to modify its precedents.

Barker, “who was nominated as a federal judge in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, had ruled that the state didn’t havdidn’tconstitutional authority to restrict virtual telemedicine services to women seeking medication abortions without providing evidence that it benefitted the women’s hewomen’she Indiana attorney general’s generalized in its appeal of Barker’s dBarker’sthat “the Const “tuition does not require state legislatures constantly to update state statutes to keep up with ever-advancing technologies just because those technologies may make abortion more convenient.”

Drug-ind “ced abortions made up 55% of those performed in Indiana last year, according to the state health department. Appeals court Judge Diane Wood wrote in her dissent that the “benefits “f Indiana’s Indiana’sllusory, while its burdens are very tangible.”

Wood wro “e that the laws” impose an” undue burden on the set of women for whom the law makes a difference — Indiana women of limited means who cannot leave their jobs, pay for extensive travel, obtain access to cars, and potentially go out of state, simply to get a lawful abortion.”

The Indi “na abortion restrictions were challenged in a broad lawsuit filed by Virginia-based Whole Woman’s HeWoman’sliance and other abortion-rights supporters in 2018 as Whole Woman’s HeWoman’sught the state’s estate’s a license to open an abortion clinic in South Bend.

Lawyers for Whole Woman’s HeWoman’sdn’t immdidn’tly comment Thursday on the appeals court ruling. Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’sHuffPost’ster

Related Posts

Leave a Comment