Steven Aden

In the last few days, one skirmish among dozens in the coast-to-coast legal abortion war came to an end in Indiana when the state and Planned Parenthood reached an agreement that formalizes a series of rulings by federal courts over the last two years.

Indiana’s Act 1210—passed in the spring of 2011—was an omnibus abortion regulation bill that sought to de-fund abortion sellers by stipulating that no state or federal funds would be provided to “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.”

This is substantially identical to de-funding measures in Texas and Missouri that federal appeals courts have upheld.

The act also included two provisions designed to strengthen full, informed consent for abortion. One provision mandated that abortionists tell mothers that human life begins at fertilization and the second obliged them to tell them that scientific information shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before 20 weeks gestation.

Planned Parenthood challenged all of these provisions in court, and after a series of rulings by federal trial and appeals courts and a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case, here is where the tally stood at the end of the day:

The fetal pain disclosure was held inapplicable to Planned Parenthood, based principally on its representation that it only does first-trimester abortions. While the trial court credited the scientific information provided by the state’s experts that infants in the womb can feel pain beginning between 16 and 18 weeks gestation, it ruled that since this was after the time period when Planned Parenthood does them, the disclosure was misleading as to its operation. The provision remains applicable, however, to later-term abortion operations.

The state and Planned Parenthood agreed the de-funding provision could not be applied to prevent the nation’s largest abortionist from participating in the Medicaid family planning program, because federal law controlled the conditions a state may place on Medicaid providers.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood also conceded that the de-funding provision would lawfully strip the organization of preventive services block grant funding, as the court of appeals had ruled; and

Planned Parenthood abandoned its challenge to the “human life” disclosure, in view of the trial court’s ruling that it was a truthful and potentially helpful statement.


Steven Aden

Steven H. Aden is senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom (www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org).