Dem
51
GOP
49
Arizona wasn't the only state to have a big abortion-related court decision this week. Indiana had one, too, although it has gotten relatively little attention. Maybe that's because it was an appellate decision, and so the story isn't over yet. Or maybe it's because it's hard to know what to make of it.
The case pitted a group called Jewish Hoosiers for Choice plus five anonymous plaintiffs of unknown religious faiths against the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana. The plaintiffs' argument is that Indiana's abortion ban is at odds with the right to religious freedom guaranteed by both the U.S. Constitution and state law, and that they should be allowed to procure abortions consistent with their "sincerely held religious beliefs."
In other words, we've got a case that pairs a notion favored primarily by liberals, namely abortion access, alongside a notion that is favored primarily by conservatives, namely being able to play by a different set of rules for religious reasons. It's hard to tell exactly what the partisan slant of the three judges is, but one (Leanna K. Weissmann) was appointed by a Republican governor, one (Melissa S. May) was appointed by a Democratic governor, and one (L. Mark Bailey) was elected and re-elected in a landslide in a pretty red part of the state. So, we would guess we're looking at two Republicans and one Democrat here. In any event, they ruled unanimously that religious adherents should indeed be allowed to claim an exemption to the abortion ban.
This will go to the Supreme Court of Indiana, where it will be heard by five Republican appointees. Maybe they will put the kibosh on it, and say that being Jewish does not entitle you to get an abortion. But maybe not. The appellate decision was unambiguous, and so too was the lower court decision that it affirmed. And because of the conservative fondness for "religious liberty," the Indiana Supremes are likely loath to weaken that notion, or to engage in the hypocrisy that it only counts for Christians and not for Jews (and members of whatever other faiths the anonymous plaintiffs represent).
Of course, if Indiana does allow religious exemptions to the abortion law, then it opens all kinds of cans of worms. Pregnant women up and down the state are going to have a Come to Jesus moment (one of the more liberal Christian denominations, presumably, like the Presbyterians), or are going to discover their inner Jew or inner Buddhist or inner Zoroastrian. The Church of Satan and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will do a brisk business in membership cards. People in other states will file similar suits; some will win and some will lose. And that, in turn, will likely mean that the matter ends up with the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knows what they will do with it?
It's really quite remarkable that the Supremes thought they were addressing the abortion question once and for all with Dobbs. What they actually did was unlock a giant Pandora's box. (Z)