PPFA wins hefty award for attorney fees, news account misses that same law could well be upheld in the not too distant future

By Dave Andrusko

This really does remind you of the old definition of chutzpah: the man who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

Virtually every single pro-life measure passed in Indiana (or most anywhere else) is challenged in court by one or another platoon of the massive pro-abortion legal army, usually the ACLU or the Center for Reproductive Rights.  

The point is the Abortion Industry has access to deep-pocketed legal organizations that either defend abortion as part of their portfolio or challenge pro-life laws as pretty much all they do. Guess what? That costs the state defending its duly passed pro-life law a small (or large) fortune.

What makes the latest judgment handed down against the state by the relentless pro-abortion Southern Indiana District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt even more infuriating is not just the amount of the attorney fees she happily doled out to Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (represented by the ACLU): a whopping $179,977.80  (and $2,521.93 in “costs”), according to the Indiana Lawyer (Indiana ordered to pay $182K in abortion case attorney fees).

It’s also that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the 2016 House Enrolled Act 1337, which (had it taken effect) “would have enacted three new provisions to Indiana abortion law,” as Olivia Covington reported: “a prohibition on abortions based on gender, race or genetic abnormality; a requirement that abortion providers inform patients of those anti-discrimination policies; and a requirement that fetal remains be disposed of as a ‘deceased human body.’”

As we reported back on May 29, 2019, “The United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s Fetal Remains law, reversing the judgment of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”

In that same decision, however, the Supreme Court chose not to hear Indiana’s defense of its prenatal nondiscrimination law protecting unborn children from discriminatory abortions, such as when abortions are carried out on the grounds of race, sex, or conditions like Down syndrome.

It was on that basis, on Tuesday, that Judge Platt granted Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky’s request for $182,499.73.  

But is there anything conspicuously missing in the Indiana Lawyer’s account? Indeed, there is!

In denying Indiana’s petition, the High Court noted it was not speaking to the merits of the case, but was following its “ordinary practice” of denying petitions in cases that have not been considered by multiple Courts of Appeals. That is in the process of changing.

While he concurred with the Court’s decision to deny certiorari on the question of Indiana’s “Sex Selective and Disability Abortion Ban,” Justice Clarence Thomas used a 20-page concurrence to note that laws like Indiana’s “promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics”, (www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052819zor_2dq3.pdf, beginning on page 13).

In other words, the justices may well revisit the issue and could easily come to a very different conclusion.

So while PPFA soaks another state for lawyer fees, hats off to the state of Indiana for passing and then defending laws whose only “fault” is they are ahead of their time.