In a recently filed legal document, Attorney General Todd Rokita has requested that the Indiana Supreme Court implement Senate Enrolled Act 1 without delay. His filing requests that the Court deny an ACLU-Planned Parenthood request to maintain the preliminary injunction against Senate Enrolled Act 1 while legal challenges to the state law continue.
Denying a rehearing and certifying the law is a necessary step for the law to be in effect.
Senate Bill 1 permits abortions in instances of rape or incest, when there is a significant risk to the life of the mother, or when fatal fetal anomalies are present.
“The exercise of raw judicial power to prolong an erroneously issued injunction would contravene this court’s precedents, subvert the purpose of preliminary relief, and undermine the democratic process,” Rokita stated. “The state, its citizens, and especially the unborn lives protected by S.B. 1 will suffer grievously from an unjustified extension of the injunction.”
Plaintiffs’ attempt to minimize the harm to the State because “abortion has been widely legal in Indiana since Roe v. Wade,” borders on farcical. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, Roe represented an unjustified federal intrusion into a realm the U.S. Constitution leaves to ‘the people and their elected representatives’ in each state.’ And as this Court has recognized, from the very beginning of the Roe era, Indiana ‘made clear it disagreed with Roe.’
Plaintiffs’ invocation of Roe reveals what this case is about—whether ‘policy making responsibility’ for abortion should be vested in democratically accountable representatives or “our five-member, unelected Court, which does not have the institutional tools to discern Hoosiers’ divergent views on whether” and when abortion should be legal. But Roe—an unprincipled exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ by the U.S. Supreme Court that ‘has embittered our political culture for a half century’—provides a cautionary tale against exercising such raw power here. The Court should not tolerate plaintiffs’ continued attempts to make the judiciary abortion policy czars
In an article for The Times of Northwest Indiana, Dan Carden provided an explanation of Rokita’s position. Rokita stated that there is “absolutely no basis” for an Indiana appellate court to refuse to vacate a preliminary injunction after concluding that the trial court exceeded its authority in issuing it, as the Supreme Court did in this case.
As previously noted, a month ago the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the law does not violate the state Constitution. In his written opinion, Justice Derek R. Molter stated that the state constitution “protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk.” However, he also noted that the General Assembly retains broad legislative discretion in determining whether and to what extent to prohibit abortions.
While there is no established timeline for the state Supreme Court to issue a ruling on the ACLU’s petition for a rehearing, according to Casey Smith, “until the high court certifies its decision, an injunction remains in place—blocking the new law from taking effect.” In the event that a ruling is issued, decisions can be certified at the earliest 30 days after the issuance of the ruling. As the June 30 ruling was not certified by Monday, it will not take effect on Tuesday.
In essence, the ACLU of Indiana had a month to petition the court to rehear the case, and they did so with alacrity, awaiting the last possible moment. Moreover, on Monday, the ACLU of Indiana filed for a rehearing, thereby further postponing the date of certification. This was reported by Brandon Smith.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
