Indiana abortion law trial set for June 1, 2015
A new Indiana law that redefines abortion clinics, aimed at shutting down a Lafayette health clinic that dispenses an abortion pill, is headed for trial in federal court.
U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson this week set a June 1, 2015, trial date in a legal challenge to the law brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.
The judge in November issued a preliminary injunction, stopping the law approved by the General Assembly in 2013, from going into effect on Jan. 1.
The lawsuit filed in August claims changes made by the 2013 legislation that redefines abortion clinics are unconstitutional.
It is at least the fourth lawsuit filed in the past decade in the contentious fight in Indiana over abortion rights and the services provided by Planned Parenthood.
The latest lawsuit takes aim at Senate Enrolled Act 371. The legislation, approved by large majorities in the Senate and House, changed the definition of "abortion clinic" to include facilities that provide only the abortion pill mifepristone, also known as RU-486, to terminate a pregnancy.
The legislation also requires clinics that offer only the nonsurgical abortion pill to meet the same physical requirements as clinics that provide surgical procedures — including separate procedure, recovery and scrub rooms.
The Lafayette center is the only facility affected by the law, which does not apply to the offices of private physicians providing the same medication.
“Imposing requirements for such things as surgical scrub facilities and surgical recovery rooms, when there is no surgical procedure ever performed at the clinic, is not only unreasonable,” Planned Parenthood says in court documents, “it is utterly irrational and unrelated to any legitimate objective the State seeks to attain by imposing such requirements.”
The state law is being defended in the lawsuit by staff from the office of the Indiana Attorney General.
“This is a routine type of scheduling order that courts issue regardless of the likelihood an actual trial will occur, and motions that could resolve the case ahead of trial will likely be filed well before 2015,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office.
“In its ruling last November, the federal court upheld the legitimacy of the 2013 Legislature’s policy regarding physical plant requirements on medication-only clinics. The court found a constitutional problem with an exemption in the statute for physicians’ offices. We respectfully disagree with the court on that point, but the Legislature can address the question legislatively without negating the entire statute if it so decides. Any legislative change could bear on whether the current injunction remains applicable.”
Call Star reporter Tim Evans at (317) 444-6204. Follow him on Twitter: @starwatchtim.