In wake of new abortion ban, Lilly says it will look outside Indiana for expansion projects

  • Comments
  • Print
Eli Lilly and Co. corporate headquarters. (IBJ file photo)

Eli Lilly and Co., one of the largest and oldest companies in Indiana, announced Saturday it will look outside the state for corporate expansion projects in the wake of a sweeping abortion ban passed by the Legislature on Friday.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker said the abortion law could hinder its ability to attract diverse scientific, engineering and business talent to Indiana.

Gov. Eric Holcomb signed into law late Friday a Republican-backed bill that will ban virtually all abortions in Indiana, making it the first state to enact abortion-restricting legislation since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The ban takes effect on Sept. 15, at which point Indiana will have one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation.

“As a global company headquartered in Indianapolis for more than 145 years, we work hard to retain and attract thousands of people who are important drivers of our state’s economy,” the company said in a statement. “Given this new law, we will be forced to plan for more employment growth outside our home state.”

A Lilly spokeswoman said the company plans to honor its current commitments in Indiana. In May, it announced plans  to spend $2.1 billion to open two manufacturing sites in Boone County. The project is expected to create up to 500 permanent jobs, along with as many as 1,500 temporary construction jobs at the site north of Lebanon and east of Interstate 65.

Lilly had remained quiet on the abortion issue during the past several weeks in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Nor did it comment publicly during the past two weeks as the Indiana General Assembly debated the issue. The statement issued Saturday was its first public comment on the matter.

“Lilly recognizes that abortion is a divisive and deeply personal issue with no clear consensus among the citizens of Indiana,” the statement said. “Despite this lack of agreement, Indiana has opted to quickly adopt one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws in the United States.”

The company said it has expanded its employee health plan coverage to include travel for reproductive services unavailable locally, but added that may not be enough for some current and potential employees.

Few other large companies in Indiana have taken a public position on the abortion debate, although the Indy Chamber on Thursday urged lawmakers to pause their work on the bill.

“Over the last two weeks, the Indiana General Assembly has debated a substantial policy change on the issue of abortion in a compressed timeframe,” the chamber’s statement read. “Such an expedited legislative process—rushing to advance state policy on broad, complex issues—is, at best, detrimental to Hoosiers, and at worst, reckless.

In addition, several hundred smaller companies also signed a petition circulated by the American Civil Liberties Union objecting to the abortion ban.

Under the new law, surgical abortions can only be done in hospitals or standalone ambulatory surgical centers owned by a hospital. The law carves out narrow exceptions for rape, incest, life or physical health of the mother, and some fatal fetal anomalies.

Lilly is the second-largest public company in Indiana by revenue, and the 13th largest employer in the state, with about 10,895 of its total workforce of about 35,000 based here.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

129 thoughts on “In wake of new abortion ban, Lilly says it will look outside Indiana for expansion projects

  1. We should be so “proud” being the first state. Finally first in something. Now we will see what happens to our economy over the next few years. This will cause a major loss of business and state income.
    Will out legislature never learn to concentrate on what is best for the state and our citizens. Let the people vote on this issue and then act accordingly. OR, vote these people OUT!

    1. Not to mention, how many intelligent parents will choose to send their children to college in the state of Indiana. I am a Hoosier who will encourage my children to attend college in states that affirm their rights… which unfortunately no longer includes their home state of Indiana.

    2. CH wants their kids to get pregnant at college and have the ability to easily kill their kids on a whim. I’m not surprised, just saddened that people are ok with their kids killing their grandkids.

    3. Indiana has made a crucial financial error on not separating church and state on this issue! Lilly is the first and there will be many to follow, not to mention how many conventions will now look at alternative states due to our closed mindedness! I’m sure the NCAA will now ban future final fours championships and other sporting events. Due to your choice, Thousands of people will now lose jobs in the hospitality industry and have to exit the state to find work elsewhere! Way to go Holcomb and the republican party! I hope you are proud of what you have done!!!

    4. The Law has no enforcement penalty. If IBJ had done a it’s homework they would know this.
      Lilly should especially know this. A law of only moral value. Both sides win. Choice is still intact, without penalty. Dr. are not prosecuted for performing the procedure. The right wins by the press ignoring this non prosecution item, and can save face with being tough ,morally only, on the abortion issue. Neither side can just drop it because both won in this law.

    1. Yep, Politics had real world economic consequences when you can’t attract new employees.

    1. Plus Eli Lilly likes it when babies get killed so their female drones can continue being the productive workers they are. Mom women are bad women.

    2. JOLF R. –
      It’s not like has been expanding here in Indianapolis anyways.
      Yeah, they’ll build the new manufacturing facility in Boone County. But that
      was only after the state pressured Lilly to start mak8ng some investments here.
      We had to twist arms in other words.

      With Lilly being headquartered here along with the I.U. Med School,
      Indianapolis should have been developing into a bio-tech research hub decades
      ago. But it never happened.

    3. What a foolish statement. You, and others who agree with you, obviously don’t understand the impact Lilly has in the state. SMH

    4. Jolf, you know 100% I’m right. Why else would Lilly as a corporation be so interested in providing for their female workers to kill their kids when they get pregnant?

    5. Jolf:

      The ignorant right wing is absolutely correct. Corporations are funding abortions because it helps them circumvent costly, non-productive maternity leave (and paternity leave, for that matter).

      Corporations are not moral entities. They are not going to abide by leftist ethics or rightist ethics. They will do what helps them accrue the most money.

      Given that these corporations are leaving high-cost, crime-ridden cities of the West Coast in droves for places like Texas and Arizona (which are just as anti-abortion as Indiana), this is a lot of talk from a predictably sleazy globalist corporation.

    6. Lauren B. –
      Not only does abortion save Lilly money on maternity leave,
      but it saves a lot of money on insurance cost.
      Much cheaper to abort than to accrue the medical expenses of birthing a child
      including the cost of staying in the hospital and the follow up doctors appointments.
      Also much cheaper than adding a dependent to their insurance that Lilly
      contributes to.
      It’s more of a bottom line issue for corporations.

  2. Did you forget what happened with RFRA and the backpedal you had to do when the business world told you the impact of that divisive issue? And now our leadership has decided to inflame the international investment world along with risking the loss of conventions and Final Fours and Super Bowls and new Tech companies moving to Indy. Losing Lilly favor has long reaching implications Governor Holcomb. Might want to look at how to say I meant to sign a veto instead…..

    1. Turns out the GOP learned a great deal from the RFRA ordeal: It would rather have power than financial success. It can essentially tell businesses to pound sand as long as it continues to hate the same people (e.g. gays, trans, POC) that the people populating the gerrymandered districts hate.

    2. And thanks to the Indiana constitution handles veto overrides, the governor is only basically a figurehead. Had he vetoed it, the simple majorities would’ve said, “Yeah, whatever” and made it law anyways over the next week.

    3. I remember the backpedaling that none of the hyperventilating folk actually left post RFRA (which was indeed a silly thing). The Colonel is turning in his grave with the fines Lilly now routinely pays, the price gouching it routinely practices, and instead it’s relentless focus on politics. Not your fathers Lilly anymore…

    4. Lee W.
      I would NOT be suprised if Salesforce and many other companies don’t
      threaten to pull out of Indianapolis.

      This could set Indianapolis back decades as we were already stagnating economically anyways.

      As for RFRA, it really was completely over blown by the left. No ones
      Rights were being denied.

  3. … uh … and so do you David C!

    Anyone in Indiana who thinks that we don’t live in an “international world” has been tricked by the Trumpian right to believe we can somehow have economic growth by trading with ourselves. A comfortable return to Indiana’s DC Stephenson, Bill Jenner isolationist stupidity. Ugh.

    Having said that, Lilly has become ridiculously woke. The very use of the the word “diverse” in their release was inane. Abortion is not a diversity issue, yet they couldn’t help flashing their wokism.

    To the extent that abortion is moral issue, it is a personal moral issue prior to the clear viability of the fetus, not a matter subject to state power. It’s not failure of diversity, Lilly, it’s a problem for regular people, especially women, who rightfully believe their liberty is being usurped by state power movitaved by righteousness.

    Lilly WILL have trouble recruiting smart young people because those people will be embarassed to tell their friends they live in Indiana. We are in a tailspin of over-reach and stupidity. A very sad predicament — perhaps end — to a state that seemed to be an enlightened leader among states a mere 15 years ago.

    1. As used in the release, “diverse” means Lilly’s workforce isn’t made up entirely of right-wing fundamentalist Christians. Not inane at all.

    2. That funny – I guess I don’t want people Indiana if they making important decisions based on what their friends think. I suppose you could call that a win-win.

    3. What’s woke about saying you have/want a diverse workforce? Lilly employs people from all around the world, different nationalities, religions, genders – doesn’t that mean “diverse”? Are they not supposed to state a fact?

  4. The Governor rushed to sign that law to evade the backlash to its passage . Now the State will not avoid the backlash to the rapid Republican Party theocratic autocratic action to force their political opinion onto Women’s health care decisions.

    1. Abortion isn’t health care Charles. It’s rare that it’s medically preferable over a caesarian section and the number of times it’s used to save the life of the mother amounts to a few a decade–out of hundreds (thousands?) of abortions each day.

  5. The nice thing is…Now that the abortion law is finished, people and companies can relocate to other more liberal states thus changing our business climate. I guess everyone will be moving to Chicago, Detroit or back to California…

    1. Clark B.

      It cracks me up to listen to the leftist on this site complain about red state
      values and morality as the reason that they don’t get economic investments.
      Obviously they haven’t been paying attention the last couple of decades.
      Almost ALL of the economic development has been happening in the
      Red states. Many of these red states are more conservative than Indiana.

      Second, the population shift has been going from Blue States to the more
      conservative red states. In fact most Blue states populations have stagnated.

    2. Clark B. – Love your opinions, which are rarely if ever based on facts. New York is home to 54 Fortune 500 company headquarters while California claims 50 headquarters on the list. That’s more than 20-percent located in just 4-percent of the states in the US. Indeed, far more Fortune 500 companies call blue states home, not red states. Indiana, by the way, has only just companies based here. So the facts disprove your claim that business prefers extreme right-wing states.

    3. Brent B.
      That’s a disingenuous statement. The vast majority of those companies headquartered in New York and California have been there before the
      economic transformation in the Red State South about 40 years ago.

      Almost all of the economic expansions and companies relocation their operations have been from the Blue States to the Sunbelt states ( the South ).
      The bulk of the population growth also has be3n in the red states south.

  6. We must take care of our children, even those in the womb. We’re seeing a lack of respect for life at all levels in our society today. All the shootings and violence, lack of respect for elders, and anger while driving down the road. There has to be a change. Once we put our children first, all things fall into place.

    1. like with guns? like with all the uninsured? like with all the CLEAR inequality in our school systems? all for them taking a stand their logic here. however, then they go back to giving money to Rs that clearly don’t care about what you are saying.

      stop voting for them and stop PAYING them…

    2. Adam, I agree 100%! Kill all the children, get rid of all guns and cars, revert to solar heating and wind for mills, eliminate all fertilizers and pesticides, and reinstitute human sacrifice on the steps of pyramids.

      What could go wrong?

    3. Adam H.

      Your Blue states are doing terrible economically and their populations have
      almost no growth rates.

  7. It really is amazing that the Indiana Republicans who rushed to this new law learned nothing from the people of Kansas, which when given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not to keep the state’s constitutional right to choice voted 60-40 to keep it. It was a stark departure what that state’s elected politicians would have have done, but proof that even in a deep red state the majority prefers choice over the government taking charge of what used to be and still ought to be a personal decision that is of no business of the state.

    1. I would have preferred a referendum as well, and I suspect the general sentiment would be tantamount to most Hoosiers wanting to keep abortion safe legal and rare, meaning they’d prefer significant restrictions over outright banning.

      This sort of overreach (which the left does ALL. THE. TIME) is, quite predictably, happening as well among the religious ideologues on the right, and this is your chance, Brent, and mine as well, to punish these people in November. Indiana will likely be a state where the GOP doesn’t fare quite as well as they do nationally…and they’re going to do just great nationally.

      But these business community threats are indeed a bunch of hot air. As others have noticed, New York state, for all its Fortune 500 muscle, is one of the most economically stagnant states in the country. Business start-ups are low in proportion to population; median household incomes have long grown slowly in relation to cost of living. Upstate New York is emptying out. And every 10 years, the US Census forces NY to lose another congressional seat. The same is happening to Illinois, and now it’s starting to happen in California. It’s almost like having these alpha global cities are a mixed blessing.

    1. Lilly is taken over by woke executives who think killing babies is in the interest of their employees. It’s true that Lilly needs its female employees to have no children to maximize their profits, so I guess encouraging their employees to kill their children is in their business interests.

    1. You really think people are going to be so upset they can’t kill their own children that they’ll vote in politicians who will legislate licenses to kill?

    2. That is doubtful. The legislature really doesn’t care what anyone thinks other than the far-right and Trumpist GOP base. They don’t even care about the business community anymore. In any case, if the legislature actually did take a left turn from its current radical right position, that would simply bring it back toward where Hoosiers actually are, ideologically. This legislature does NOT represent Hoosiers any more than the Kansas legislature did.

  8. I urge Lilly and Cummins and other major companies headquartered in IN to relocate their headquarters to other, less fascist states. This state needs to feel the backlash. And shame on you, Governor Dufus.

    1. @DH an embryo is not a child. If you want a say, get a uterus – otherwise be quiet.

    2. @DH Exactly – you got it in a nutshell. Good job. No-one has a right to tell you, as the woman you are, what to do with your body.

    3. The Nazis loved medical experimentation on unwilling (and often unknowing) subjects.

  9. Big Pharma Lilly has created more deaths by suicide with Prozac than they have saved.
    Over medicate our kids and the result is teenage mass shooters. Release the medical report on the Greenwood Mall shooter!

    1. Excellent points, Bernard L.

      And with this violence to the innocent unborn championed by so many leftists posting comments, is it any wonder there is so little respect for life in our culture today…at all levels?

      All rights begin with The Right to Life. If a person doesn’t have a right to be alive, all the other rights these selfish, ignorant posters enjoy are moot points.

      Talk about human sacrifice…all these posters can prattle on about is the financial impact the new law will have on the state. Why not start killing all the old and infirmed in nursing homes who are no longer productive workers? That time is coming, but only for people who have long-range vision.

    2. Nice comment, Michael G. Since you openly advocate killing a comment poster, we’ll see if the IBJ Comment Moderator blocks you for a while…if not permanently. It would be warranted.

      Moderators? Is there any moderation on this forum?

  10. Remember. Nobody ever FORCED these women to get an abortion. These were all voluntary choices, often with very negative social and financial hurdles.

    Yet here we are, passing laws to eliminate the fundamental right to decide to have a child. This law this law decides that the state can force you to have a child or not to have one at their whim. Your womb is government property.

    Land of the free.

    1. Jolf–

      If an embryo is not a child, can we claim that a nonagenarian isn’t really human anymore, since they’re already on the verge of being primarily a corpse?

      I mean, the left is 100% anti-science when it comes to the abortion argument (which is why they are losing), but to pretend life doesn’t begin at conception is something no doctor outside of a sleazy activist like Caitlin Bernard would do.

      The best argument for the pro-choice crowd is bodily autonomy–my body my choice–but since most of them were banging the drum about mandatory vaccinations six months ago, their ideological consistency is deservedly called into question. And then of course the “no uterus, no opinion” silliness, as though immaculate conception were a thing. Men already have to take a backseat in the argument, despite the fact that you won’t have a baby without their batter. And one of the main reasons the pro-life is so strong is that women are leading the charge. With more political power and a majority of the electorate (since the patriarchy incarcerates so many men), they’re the ones most effective at spreading a political message. That, and the counter-argument half the time amounts to fat childless women screaming “f–k!” at the top of their lungs.

      Still not a pro-lifer. I think abortion should be legal for the first trimester. But I can certainly see why the pro-choicers appear to be losing.

    2. @Lauren. A nonagenarian doesn’t inhabit a uterus or need one to survive. Near corpse or not, it can breathe independently….

  11. BTW, for all you baby-haters: I own a good deal of Eli Lilly common stock that pays good dividends to help finance my retirement. I would gladly settle for lower dividends if they’d get their heads out of their asses and stand up for The Right to Life of all their future customers. The country’s birth rate has been below replacement numbers for years and that doesn’t bode well for any industry, no matter how short-sighted and selfish they are today.

  12. Hope you’re happy, state legislature. Indianapolis is mostly Democratic but will unfortunately feel the most pain from this terrible decision.

    1. Yes, Indy is mostly Dem now. That’s why we are stagnating economically
      and our growth is sluggish at best.

      That said, this anti abortion law will make things worse.

  13. @DH. You have a uterus = you get to vote. If this is a moral issue then it is a PERSONAL moral issue. Lobby other women. Your forced birth position is immoral. You may not like it. But you get to choose for yourself in a free society. So do they.

    1. Kim, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for advocating for legalizing the murder of children. If murdering adults is illegal, then murdering children should be illegal as well.

    2. D.H. — NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE advocates for the murder of children. NO ONE is pro-abortion. The majority of people are pro-choice, anti-abortion. They believe the mother and father have the right to choose, but hope they make the choice to have the baby.

    3. Actually Matthew C; the DNC advocates for abortion up to and including full term; 9 months, as they’ve achieved in NY and CA, which is murder since the fetus is fully viable at that point outside the womb. Did you notice all the people and companies flocking to those states to live because of that?

    4. Matthew C–

      Actually, in Maryland, the state legislature is floating a bill that allows women to terminate their babies–yes, babies–within 30 days after their pregnancy if they are having misgivings or are faced with extreme financial hardship. Yes, a grace time for infanticide.

      The slippery slope isn’t a fallacy: it applies all the time to the left; they will ALWAYS try to go farther. Probably the same can be said about the right, but fortunately they don’t usually get that chance and the institutions (like Lilly) do whatever they can to tamp down the extreme religious conservatives.

    5. Here comes Lauren Bot again, with more False and Bad-Faith nonsense to muddy the conversation.

  14. A fertilized egg is only a baby in a minority of religious views. Your religion should not dictate state policy. If you disagree, maybe you should move to Iran or Afghanistan where religion dominates all policy decisions. We don’t need that in America.

    1. Or maybe you should move to North Korea or China where abortion is unlimited up to and including birth.

  15. Way to go you so called pro-business Republicans. You are nothing but a bunch of religious fanatics who fear your base will leave you if you stand up for what the majority of voters favor. I think you should all be charged for practicing medicine without a license.

  16. Way to go you so called pro-business Republicans. You are nothing but a bunch of religious fanatics who fear your base will leave you if you stand up for what the majority of voters favor. You should all be charged for practicing medicine without a license.

    1. DH, the cover-my-ears-I-can’t-hear-you insistence that an embryo is a “child” and that all abortions represent “the murder of a child” is such a tired straw man by the forced birthers. An early embryo isn’t anymore a “child” than the first drop of water to spill into a tumbler from the pitcher is a “glass of water” or the first wheelbarrow load of concrete for the footing of a new home is a “house”. Yet it’s restated over and over and over by the fringers as though the repetition can make this assertion reality.

      The best analogy for clarity: You’re in a fertility clinic which happens to be on fire. It’s a blazing inferno and you have seconds to get out. In the room with you is both a 5 year old child and a jar with 1,000 fertilized embryos. You can either A. – grab the five-year-old child and save its life from the fire, or B. – grab the jar of embryos to remove it from the burning building. There is no C. – you cannot do both. Which do you choose? Anti-abortion absolutists know the correct answer but are unable to state it.

      This is not an absolute rights question of either the mother or the fetus. This is a competing rights question where the fulcrum for the balance of rights shifts over time. Thus the most appropriate answer grants the woman superior rights over the fetus early in the development of the fetus with a shifting of priority of those competing rights to the fetus over the pregnancy, i.e., a Roe-type solution or what Indiana had before – greater freedom for the mother to terminate the pregnancy early and diminishing over time to prohibition.

      I’m not a leftist abortion absolutist as some of the right wing commenters like to brand anyone who doesn’t share their absolutist views. Not a “baby hater”, have two children of my own and hope for grandchildren someday. But I am aware enough to acknowledge we live in a state where 75 to 80% of our ruling class is male and has delivered a law that will have far-reaching negative consequences on our state that have been disregarded, minimized, brushed away and that is profoundly female gender disproportionately onerous and in some circumstances will be overtly cruel to women. Not to mention another point for the exacerbation of the wealth gap – with access being available to those women of means and not to those without, deepening a self-reinforcing cycle.

      Has anyone even done a credible analysis on how many abortions will be prevented as red states adopt these poison pill bans and blue states further strengthen their laws to provide women the choice? Existing abortion rates are much lower in red states and much higher in blue states, meaning that the low hanging fruit as defined by the number of newly forced births is off the table. As mentioned earlier, women with the means to do so will travel for this service, leading to, I presume, a relatively small number of these additional children being born into poorer families, disproportionately located in red states.

      The rank hypocrisy of the partisanship is just icing on the cake – the party of “small government” ramming through a top-down morality choice on its citizenry – in a state that’s among the worst in the nation for maternal mortality. A mandate – something that until 5 minutes ago was anathema to the GOP – taking an ax to the root of the tree of personal privacy, bodily autonomy, etc.. So unnecessary – if abortion doesn’t comport with your family’s morality or personal belief set, don’t seek it out! Just don’t force that choice on others for whom you have no idea of the specific circumstances. That doesn’t preclude doing everything else possible to reduce the number of abortions that do take place – improve the process of adoption, improve the social safety net for those in poverty, counsel young expectant mothers on the choice they’re making, prove access to contraception to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies, etc. 

      Poor policy that will have relatively low success for zealots representing a minority of public opinion (ref. Kansas) but will come with unintended/unforeseen negative consequences for a state that doesn’t need more of those. A perfect solution to the problem of abortion isn’t possible, due to the complex and varied circumstances, but Indiana has just adopted a stance that is more unwise and harmful than its prior policy.

  17. D H, your views on abortion are driven by your religion. Recognize that truth and you might begin to appreciate the opposition. Abortion is only “killing children” as you call it in a minority or religious views. Recall the woman in the House who justified her vote on the abortion bill because she firmly believed that “Jesus Christ” told her how to vote on the issue of abortion. If that is not religious domination, what is? You and she can move to Iran and live under a religious dictatorship. I suspect you would not like it.

    1. Jerry, I didn’t bring religion once, yet you did multiple times. It’s amazing, really, you seem to be the one dominated by it.

      The mildly funny thing is Europe is largely agnostic at this point, yet they have stricter abortion bans than in the United States.

      The truly hilarious thing is you can’t explain why murder of adults is illegal, even though that law is on the books throughout the entire world regardless of religious foundation. It’s almost as if laws are based on common morality, not religion.

    2. D.H. – You seem totally oblivious to the history of the anti-abortion movement in the US. It began during the Carter administration as a backlash to the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade. At the forefront were the religious supporters of Ronald Reagan, led by Pat Robertson, who formed the “Moral Majority” (morality in Western civilizations are largely based on religious principles) The objective: fight back against the liberal, immoral forces that made Roe v. Wade possible, and to take the lead on other nescient cultural issues that were deemed immoral. Fast forward to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 which actively recruited evangelical Christians to support the admittedly immoral Trump with the promise that he would nominate uber-conservatives to the SCOTUS which in turn would one day lead to a repeal of Roe v. Wade. So yes, the abortion issue is one based on religious beliefs and fervor (which explains why few agnostics or atheists are to be found among the pro-life crowd. Also, regarding your assertion about European restrictions on abortion. Despite a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted, abortion is legal in most European countries. In fact, ninety-five percent of women of reproductive age there live in countries which allow elective abortions for broad socioeconomic reasons.

    3. Brent is doing his part to completely ignore the fact that murder is illegal throughout the civilized world, not because of religion, but the inalienable right to life.

      Roe v Wade, a disastrously terrible unconstitutional decision (agreed upon by both sides of the debate), was of course the impetus to overturn it. It made no constitutional sense and it took power away from the states to decide for themselves whether to outlaw murder.

      It has nothing to do with religion, but rather it should be legal to murder.

      Ever wonder why atheists are also against abortion?

    4. D H – I most certainly am not being disingenuous because I do not accept the idea that a fetus is the same thing as you or me.
      Nature readies a baby for life outside the womb at about 38 weeks. However we know that some fetuses can be removed from the womb as early as 28 weeks, but typically will require extraordinary life support to survive. That is the earliest that life as we know it begins, at least according to science.
      As for your contention that ”murder is illegal throughout the civilized world” you are wrong, at least as far as the United States is concerned. Our country allows the execution of men and women convicted of crimes. Also, ten states (California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) all recognize physician-assisted suicide as legal. And then there are those pesky things known as “Living Wills” which allow all of us to let a someone else pull the plug when it is time to go. Some might consider that “might” as well.
      So much for “inalienable” right to life. By the way, “inalienable” means not able to be given or taken by man…which I guess leaves God as the ultimate source of such a right. Which is why the “sanctity” of life is a clarion call, since sanctity means “the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.”

    5. Men and women convicted of crimes get a trial by jury before they face the death penalty, Brent. And it often gets delayed for decades through appeals…sometimes doesn’t happen at all.

      Physician-assisted suicide only takes place with the consent of the person seeking euthanasia, or, in some cases, through their immediate family members, which is still highly contentious (as many of us remember from the Terry Schiavo case).

      In other words, the only constituency that neither a) has a voice asserting its right to live nor b) causes those who voluntarily rob them of life to immediately face legal consequence is the unborn. I remember a point when the political left, who I used to primarily support, stood for the weakest and most defenseless. Now they’re trying to convince us that middle-class women, with complete access to contraception and who can overrule the father 100% on abortion, are somehow still oppressed. Nope.

      Abortion is legal in most European countries. But it is held under much stricter standards in nearly all of them than it was in the US before the overturning of Roe. The standard that Mississippi sought through the Dobbs decision is the median time frame allowed in most European countries, but the left wouldn’t pick its battles decisively. Since they’ve abandoned the notion that the unborn are even human.

      I support murder of the unborn. I’ve said it. It’s ghastly and I wish there were never a need for it. But since I think abortion should still be legal for up to three months (again, more generous than much of Europe) I at least must come to terms with the vast array of arguments against this barbaric and wretched but inevitable evil.

  18. Tim D–I don’t know who you are but your explanation above is perfectly stated in the fairest of terms possible. I applaud you for your logic and spot-on assessment. I concur and wish I could have stated it as well. Thank you.

    1. Tim’s not a moderate in the least, nor are these “the fairest of terms possible”. He clearly HATES the right-wing and is utterly blind to similar hypocrisy–as well as more extremist abort-em-all views–coming from the left.

      And it’s too bad, because he makes some good points about the decision being primarily the domain of the woman at the beginning of the pregnancy and slowly, as the fetus’s viability grows, the woman’s right to make this choice might eventually get superseded by the pre-born child’s right to live.

      But he peppers it with tons of jabs to the right, dubious stats (do red states have higher abortion rates? some do and some don’t, and the ones getting abortions in red states are clearly not pro-life), and pretends that women have no say. And it appears he’s never actually been to an abortion rally and seen how the pro-choice women’s arguments often consist of dropping the f-bomb every third word. So persuasive.

      Tim is just a particularly verbose leftist. I’m verbose too sometimes, but it takes more language to articulate nuance. Tim just uses seven paragraphs to say “they bad, we good”.

    2. Lauren B–You seem to pepper your comments, as well, with absolutes and generalities. Logic dictates that neither absolutes or generalities prove anything. Tim’s perspective yielded a continuum that provided for an understanding that many of us who believe in a woman’s right to choose also feel that, along that continuum, that “right” diminishes over time. His point was that what Indiana had (and Roe vs. Wade provided for) a continuum within which a more personal decision might be made.
      Yes, you are verbose and, sadly, with a point of view that is narrowly defined by the way you think things should be. Please respect that there are others who have strong feelings, but see it differently. You do understand, I trust, that whether based on religious or moral grounds, there is another point of view.
      If you choose to generalize about the “pro-choice women’s arguments often consist(ing)of dropping the f-bomb every third word”, you disclose yourself as one who chooses only to hear what you hear, believe what you believe and insist that everyone else feel and react the same way. Sorry…not persuasive. Your arguments are lost in your inherent bias reflected in your comments.

    3. John P.
      Lauren has been very consistent and even handed in trying to see it from
      both sides.
      She has said many times that she is pro choice but with restrictions after
      a certain time period expires.

      She points out the extremism of the left the way the left tries to portray
      the religious right. She’s simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
      Nothing more.

    4. Such a target-rich environment here – not sure where to start. Sighs….takes deep breath. Let’s see – bothsidesing, whataboutism, straw man, ad hominem, false dichotomy – Lauren delivers the veritable smorgasbord of bad faith argumentation. And to what end, honestly, with an acknowledgment of delivering a rebuttal to the self-admitted “he makes some good points”?

      We can start here, with the “dubious stats”: rates of abortion, starting at the bottom – Wyoming, South Dakota, Kentucky, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, West Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, Nebraska. Need I continue? My question is sincere – has someone actually made an effort to quantify just how many additional births are likely to result from the coming disproportionate distribution of rights to women of childbearing age depending upon the state they live in and their socioeconomic status?

      Nope, despite the claim, not blind to hypocrisy from the left. (for instance, I hate the rallying cry of “Abortion is healthcare). And I am aware that there are abortion absolutists that have it just as as wrong as the anti-abortion absolutists. But that is not the debate here – the law is not a reactionary response to an activist push for more access to abortion in Indiana. There is no such “abort-em-all” movement in this state. Rather, what is real here is the zealotry from the right, i.e., “Although we cannot fully endorse the amended SB1 due to its rape, incest, and lethal fetal anomaly exceptions” – Indiana Right to Life

      No argument ( or “pretend” – to use Lauren’s term?) from me that women have no agency. Lauren seeks to redefine the debate on different terms in order to rebut a different argument.  Certainty of weakness of the argument is revealed when the debater feels the need to redefine the debate in his or her more favorable terms. I am, however, certain that the unforeseen, unintended, unfortunate consequences of the new law will fall disproportionately on women. Someone fill me in if I’ve missed the references in the legislation on restrictions or mandates for men. And I really wish a women who went through a traumatic miscarriage would offer some comments here regarding concerns for their daughters and granddaughters.

      Lauren is correct that I’ve never been to an “abortion rally” – not sure what that is, even. I suppose it would be intended to expand abortion rights and I don’t believe in more abortions. I am confident, however, that foul language used at such events is a distraction offered by Lauren and not relevant to the discussion – sage advice here to watch the hands and not the cards.
      My issue isn’t that I hate the right – it’s that I believe what the right has done is wrong here. And the clear inconsistency and hypocrisy does raise the legitimate question of whether the right ever possesses guiding principles at all outside of the end always justifies the means. But Lauren’s response sounds suspiciously like an episode of Tucker – “They” “hate” “you”. You know, the 65 year old male lawmaker trying to make the argument that it would be an even better law if there were no exceptions at all – not for the psychological trauma for your granddaughter, 14 years old, pregnant by a rapist and forced by law to deliver an infant conceived in violence because she missed the window. Or the husband losing the love of his life to a case of sepsis caused by a non-viable fetus because she can’t find a doctor with confidence to treat her in time. But, hey, the real victim is the anti-abortion bloc, because “Something, something, ‘leftists hate them'”.

      They bad, we good isn’t a summary at all. They and we are both undefined, yet still represent component parts of whatever community any of us wish to expand our thinking to. A goal of good lawmaking should be to arrive at the most just set of rules. Dobbs combined with states’ resultant actions is highly unlikely to do that. That has a negative impact on all of us – i.e., WE.

      Lauren is correct that it does take more words to work through a complex and nuanced issue. Thus both the two sentence responses from random Fox talking points generators and the “don’t let the door hit you on your way out” schoolyard taunts are valueless. And, just spitballing here, but anyone who feels compelled to rebut or comment on the opinions of others 10 times in a single topic just might have a smidgen of deficiency in the irony recognition department related to verbosity. But thanks as always for playing!

    1. Ryan H. –
      Absolutely correct!!!
      Lilly investments here in Indianapolis has been minimal at best for the last
      thirty some years.

      I hardly think the abortion legislation was going to start changing that.

  19. I’ve read Lilly’s press release on this matter and it is disgusting. I suppose they ought to furnish prostitutes for their male (and I would suppose, female) employees so their “workforce” would feel more “comfortable” at work.

    1. They just want to get out of providing extensive maternity/paternity leave. It’s all about the bottom line for these dirtbag corporations.

      Further proof that, when it comes to ethical convictions, it boils down to individuals. Ethical commitment gets fuzzed over when collectives are concerned. This includes charities, private clubs, think tanks, and the church.

  20. As far as abortion goes, I really could care less what any guy thinks about the subject. All the grandstanding over murder when if it was a loved one of theirs whose life would be impacted or god forbid put in danger they would feel/act very differently.

    Many of these same people who feel this is justified would not want one additional penny to go to Mothers or the poor (especially those where the guy just takes off and is never seen again) who do not have the funds to provide a stable life for the child. All this caring about “life”, what a joke.

    I used to consider myself in the GOP, but now firmly independent. I can’t take the hypocrisy anymore.

    1. But you’re comfortable with the “my body, my choice” hypocrisy of the Democrats when most of them are happy to ruin people’s life for a largely untested vaccine against a mostly non-lethal flu virus? Of the notion that the Dems care about the poor when, under a Dem supermajority, we face baby formula shortages for the first time in anyone’s recent memory?

      Using this (very popular) argument that you pose in your second paragraph, in the absence of a massive cradle-to-graduation support network guaranteed for all children, the best alternative is to just kill ’em.

    2. You should consider all the crisis pregnancy centers run by the people you seem to disdain. They’re providing care for women and helping with wraparound services. Many of them are gearing up for the fact that their job has just become even more important and much bigger. There are many many places and thousands of people who put their money where their mouth is and far more. I think your comment is a huge generalization and pretty unfair. I Acknowledge that there are some people like the ones you describe. But there are just a lot who aren’t also.

    3. What about all the people who work in the crisis pregnancy centers? They show up to help everyday. The testimonials of women who have been served is moving.

  21. So, Lilly wants to make sure that all of their employees can get an abortion? I wasn’t aware that this was in such high demand as a term of employment. I wonder if at this point Lilly would accept any limits on abortion. Or if only unlimited at any stage of pregnancy will do. As mentioned another places most of Europe has had far stronger limits on abortion than the US. I wonder if Lilly would not do business in some of those places. Or do they only object to the near total ban?

    1. The reality, Jed, is that in 2022, abortion isn’t really the domain of low-income women. The income bracket with the highest rates of abortion are those with incomes 400% above the poverty rate. So it wouldn’t surprise me if Lilly’s highly educated, well-paid female employees are getting abortions during their lunch break. They’re the ones primarily spinning the “abortion is healthcare” myth.

    2. KK –
      Do you have stats to disprove Lauren B’s assertions.
      If you do present them.

    3. “Nearly half of women who have abortions live below the federal poverty level” – MarketWatch, October 4, 2019

  22. I long for the good ole days I suppose. Am just tired of these corporate bullies throwing their weight around on whatever the politically correct agenda of the day happens to be and trying to blackmail the state to get their way. I really doubt they care that much about any social issue. I would love for them to have their bluff called …

  23. John P., I’m with you, Tim D. perfectly articulated the POV I share on this issue and, like you, I wish I could have expressed it as well as he did. Thanks, Tim.

    For what it’s worth, though, I hope that companies, such as Cummins, Salesforce and Rolls Royce, exert more of their influence. The statement made this past weekend by the leadership of Gen Con, as it regards its commitment to Indianapolis, might not matter to a lot of people, but it’s no coincidence that an estimated 55,000 people attended this show over the past few days, generating millions of dollars and the fact that the Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association announced that our city’s convention business is fully back at levels higher than before the pandemic — a FULL year ahead of schedule. In fact, no other city in the nation hosted more live, in-person events and conventions in 2021 than Indianapolis. That’s 255 events and multiply that by however many people each of these events attract is a business that is AS critical as any single industry in our state. It matters.

  24. This is not a question, whether you support or oppose the abortion. This is the question of women’s right. The woman should be solely responsible for her health and well being. By passing this law, the lawmakers have made women second class citizens.
    The corporate leaders recognize this as discriminatory and they will take the necessary steps to protect their employees.
    Let’s not bad mouth our industry leaders. Lilly foundation is the largest philanthropy in Indiana.
    All these business leaders are responsible for surpluses in the state coffer that the state government enjoys.

  25. Tim D. – thanks for your comments. Well said.

    Demonizing people or corporations isn’t helpful. I just don’t understand why it is so hard to find compromise that respects diversity of thought. It’s unfortunate the legislature couldn’t take a pause and consider the complexity of this issue before voting. Respect for the individuals that may have to make difficult choices, respect for varied religious beliefs (e.g. when life begins), and respect for medical experts should be primary in this debate. Absolutism is the way of autocrats and dictators. Democracies should be more responsive to their constituents. If you agree, the action to take is to vote them out.

  26. It is a sad day when a healthcare company publicly states that killing babies in the womb “align with our values”. Pro-abortion states like Illinois and California would be quite happy to see a company like Lilly locate operations there. Particularly since hundreds of businesses are leaving their states.

    1. Yup – perfect – they should move to California – put their money where their mouth is – it’s much safer in LA as well 🙂

  27. I applaud Lilly’s position. Women should be able to make their health care decisions including their reproductive rights without government intervention. Perhaps men need the government to decide if they should have a vasectomy or not? And if men got pregnant and had abortions it would be considered a right of passage. They’d all be comparing notes to see how may abortions they’d racked up as a sign of their masculinity.

    1. That’s so right, Steve; thanks.

      The new law allows for abortions in the event of rape, incest, fetal abnormality, and/or the mother’s life being endangered by the continued pregnancy, like an ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, as my wife heard it described so accurately, the ONLY abortions outlawed are recreational abortions.

      Think about it, all you pro-aborts… aren’t many teenagers murdering one another doing it for recreational purposes?

      And yet we wonder why there is so little respect for life today at all levels. You pro-aborts ought to hang your heads in shame, but shame is an unfamiliar word to most contemporary, secular-humanist liberals.

  28. If republicans truly think of the unborn as individual humans with rights, why did they deny amendments to allow Indiana families to claim unborn children when filing taxes (like Georgia)? Shouldn’t I be able to insure them under my life insurance plan? Why not assign them social security numbers at conception if that is when life starts?

  29. Tim, I for one am glad the Beck’s hybrids doesn’t take the same position on “Corn”.

    It is no more an ear of corn as a seed than than an embryo is a fetus when it is initially planted!

    Of course agriculture is not an economic driver in the state of Indiana! (Sarcasm, $30B roughly 10% of GDP)

  30. Not trying to be cynical or bash Lilly. Eli Lilly has be3n great for the
    Indianapolis area. A great philanthropist to our city.

    But Lilly has had very little economic expansions here in Indy over the last
    thirty years. Very little.
    So Eli Lilly threatening Indianapolis is for the most part meaningless.

    Think about those —-
    With Lilly and the IU School of Medicine both headquartered here in Indianapolis,
    Indianapolis should have developed into a biotech medical research hub.
    But we didn’t.

    1. It’s interesting that when there are major medical topics in the news, there is never any “expert” from Indianapolis interviewed by the media for reaction or comment. Apparently we don’t have any. If you ask anyone to name the top five (or even 25) medical research centers in the country, Indianapolis isn’t even a blip. Our national profile as a leading city in biotech medicine is, for all intents and purposes non-existent. But hey, we got the 500 race…

  31. Tim D –

    Thank you for your well stated and reasoned thoughts. I recently heard we are a “representative” form of government, not a democracy. Time to vote out the old, white male representatives that thought this was such a good idea ….and who also voted down the option for a referendum – lest the people have a voice.

  32. From just looking at the comments, this is clearly a sensitive subject. Regardless which position you take on the matter, its not as easy and simple as black&white. I do feel the Indiana law makers should have waited a little longer and truly considered if their making a drastic economic suicide in that this law could stall major economic development and the lost of major conventions. I don’t have the answer to what should be done to please everyone on the subject or what’s a reasonable compromise but this may end up hurting Indys economy and giving our peer cities a chance to capitalize on. IF companies start to leave and large conventions no longer commit to Indy, would this have been worth the economic lost?

    1. Kevin P.
      Great points.
      The legislature absolutely rushed this through way to fast without thinking
      things through. Such as the potential economic fall out.
      The economic damage to Indy could be immense.

      I’m thinking that the kite Reality Group might be rethinking their plans for the
      Convention Center Hotel now. Waiting to see how this legislation affects our
      Convention business and visitors coming to Indianapolis.

  33. @DOUG T, how did both sides win in this law? As usual, the only decision that was made was the decision to show how our lawmakers and our Governor are always missing the mark when it comes to voting on laws that are good for all. Yes, I am sure that if an abortion needs to be performed the burden is back on the woman to drive across state lines unless all Indiana requirements are met. Thinking of the big picture is not what this state does and they proved it with this vote. With all of the posts I am reading I don’t believe their constituents wanted the vote to go the way it did so who did they listen to? There are no winners in this matter just children that will be born that may be loved yes, but many that will be abandoned, unloved, pushed aside, and the women that will need to figure out what is right for them in how they go on with their lives.

    This is an issue that is not one-size-fits-all and that is why this law makes no sense. We will all be judged one day I am sure, but it should not be judged by our lawmakers in treating this like a crime when for many it is a very hard and life-changing decision.

  34. Lilly’s statement is nothing but a restatement of what they’ve already been doing for years now.

    It’s tempting, and for some perhaps comforting, to blame things like RFRA and abortion laws for the state’s economic struggles. But matters like low educational attainment, middling quality but very expensive health care, low levels of public services, an often unimpressive public realm, and other matters are also substantive and longstanding.

    Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to have a candid conversation about these matters due to the sensitivities around the institutions involved. Lilly’s corporate actions in the past 10-15 have rarely been – still haven’t been, quite frankly – been analyzed systematically to inform the public about what they say about our city and its competitiveness.

    There’s another major corporation in town that I would rate as being at risk of moving its headquarters. This company hasn’t been investing locally for years at the same time it has built up hubs elsewhere. That’s hardly a good sign. They might well cite the abortion law on the way out the door – it would be an easy source of kudos for the CEO – but whether they stay or go, the warning signs were there long before this abortion law came along.

    Similarly, we frequently hear that the IU School of Medicine is the second largest in the country. But how often do we hear that it’s ranked 41st in quality? That’s hardly an elite ranking. What would it take to improve that materially?

    There should be much more focus on issues like these (which the IBJ has been trying to engage on).

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In