Indy Chamber urges pause on abortion bill, says acting now could be ‘reckless’

The Indy Chamber on Thursday morning urged Indiana lawmakers to pause their work on legislation that would ban abortion in most circumstances and take more time to gather information about how the proposal would affect women and health care providers.

“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 statement reads. “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 its first public statement about the contentious legislation, the region’s business association said Senate Bill 1—which has passed the Indiana Senate and is under consideration in the House—raises questions that will be difficult to address in a special session, which can last no more than 40 days.

Indy Chamber said lawmakers need time to “craft solutions that address fundamental, unanswered questions.” Among them, Indy Chamber said, are:

  • How will Indiana improve its poor infant and maternal health outcomes, particularly for women of color and women from low-income households?
  • How will physicians balance their legal risk against the health and well-being of women and infants?
  • Will Hoosier employers retain the right to set policies regarding employee benefits and health plans that are necessary to meet their employees’ needs?
  • How will Indiana retain and attract talent to grow its economy in today’s global labor marketplace?
  • Will the Indy region continue to attract tourism and convention investments that contribute to the entire state’s economic outlook?

As passed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the legislation would prohibit abortions from the time a fertilized egg implants in a uterus. Exceptions would be allowed to prevent “a substantial permanent impairment of the life of the mother” or in cases of rape and incest, but a patient seeking an abortion for rape or incest would have to sign a notarized affidavit attesting to the attack.

The GOP-majority House has amended the bill to allow abortions to protect the health of the mother. The House also removed the requirement for notarized affidavits for rape and incest victims.

The Indy Chamber’s statement comes a day after leaders of Gen Con, one of the city’s largest conventions, expressed their opposition to the proposed ban and suggested that the organization could end its relationship with the state over the issue.

“I want to note that we are deeply troubled by the action currently under way in the Indiana General Assembly,” said David Hoppe, president of Gen Con. “Passage of Senate Bill 1 will have an impact on our stakeholders and attendees and will make it more difficult for us to remain committed to Indiana as our long-term annual home.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

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.

67 thoughts on “Indy Chamber urges pause on abortion bill, says acting now could be ‘reckless’

  1. I’d really like to see the mega corps who’ve signed on for large projects come out and “reconsider” those projects if the state legislature continues down this path.
    And as we’re all painfully aware, the Mullah-publicans are gonna do what the voices in their heads tell them–not what the population actually tells them.

    1. Agree 100%. Not just the mega corps with new projects, but biz of all sizes with any ability to relo out of Indiana or not come here in the first place. I hope this bites all the crimson red states in the butt.

  2. Yes, slow down and think of the impact of what you vote on, think of the women who disproportionately have no say in Indiana policies, think of others, not yourselves and if possible, simply think.

    1. Anyone want to place a wager that Kansas will take another pass at banning abortions as soon as this Fall? Putting things on the ballot for primaries is very, very rare…perhaps as rare as Donald T. Rump having a benevolent idea; i.e. there is ALWAYS something in it for him, even if it’s not immediately apparent.

    2. Marc L. Agreed on this comment.

      The R’s and the Dems should work on a bipartisan abortion bill and then put it
      to the voters. A referendum.

    1. Yes – referendum. Never going to happen because we all know what the result will be!

  3. Actually there is no good time to inject Republican theocratic autocratic political opinions into the private healthcare decisions that belong to women with their choice of medical expert advisors. Women have human and civil rights to make those decisions themselves.

    1. There should also be reasonable time limits that the leftwing cultists will not
      agree to. Your leftwingers are just as theocratical in their own self righteousness
      fanatical ways.

      MOST people whether they are pro life or pro choice will support common sense
      legislation.

    2. Keith, you don’t see people on the left flying giant Biden flags on their cars. People on the left don’t worship their politicians like they’re some kind of God. You also might want to look up the definition of theocratic.

      Anyway, like most people on the left, I don’t mind reasonable restrictions on abortion. I’d be okay with a ban after the first trimester. That just goes to show you we aren’t the ones in a radical cult. MAGA is the group of people you appear to have meant to address. That is certainly an alt-right cult.

    3. Wesley –
      I meant radical left that are just as radical in their narrow minded views as the right wing.

      Second, The MAGA are no radical than what the anti-Trumpers TDS were.
      The MAGA didn’t worship Trump. They supported Trump with all of his
      inperfecttions that they recognized. And for good reason.

      You are correct that the vast majority of people do support reasonable legislation.
      In other words no body will be totally happy, but will compromise.

    4. Keith, there are still people driving around with giant Trump flags on the back of their trucks. There are still people with Trump flags flying with an American flag flipped upside down. A large segment of the MAGA movement does worship him as if he is some kind of God. I’ve never seen any other politician (on either side of the aisle) have followers like that. Don’t try to both sides this and act like those on the left are somehow similar.

    5. Wesley –

      Do you condone a whole voting block being insulted, disparaged, and denigrated
      ( in the most vile & vulgar terms ) as the
      Trump voters were constantly between 2016 and the election of 2020?..
      That has never happened before either. Yet your anti-Trump did just that.

      Anyone serving in the Trump Administration were being targeted political persecution.
      People that were ask to serve their country and did so with very honorable
      intentions were now being hunted down to have their livelihoods destroyed.
      That has never happened before either. Yet, your anti-Trumpers were lusting
      for blood and revenge setting a whole new standard of political revenge.

      You should NOT be so self sanctimonious when the Dems and the anti-Trumpers
      said and did very selfish hateful things against half the country.

      Let’s not forget either that it was very unsafe for Trump supporters to show
      support for Trump during his presidency. Physically and professionally.

      When you live in a glass house, you really shouldn’t cast stones.

    6. Keith, I think everything you just said is a joke. My right-wing family members demonized me and others in my family that supported Obama. Demonizing people who vote differently than you is not some new phenomenon that happened with Trump. The MAGA movement is now calling the LGBT community groomers. That doesn’t seem very nice either. 30%-40% of this country is now in a cult that worships Donald Trump like he is God. I don’t respect anyone who worships politicians like that.

  4. Please put the issue to a referendum and let the voters have a direct voice since our legislators are not listening. This is a healthcare issue that should be between a woman and her physician. Let’s set a first trimester deadline for ALL women. Stop playing politics with this important issue. It is not an issue that should be decided by politician’s personal religious views.

    1. But major fetal abnormalities that are not viable are not detected until 20+ weeks. Imagine being told that the brain has come out of an underdeveloped skull. That’s just one of many profound deformities that can occur.
      Should a person be expected to carry such a fetus until birth or infection? Could an induction be done, since that’s not technically abortion?

      This is why medical care needs to be in the hands of medical professionals and patients. The human body is far too complex to be legislated.

    2. Do you think the leftwing cultists are any less fanatical in their extremist views??
      Many leftwing cultists want abortion upon demand to the moment of birth.
      That is an extremist point of view also.

      Reasonable legislation will not totally please everyone, but it would
      be a compromise that the vast majority of people will support.

      Reasonable legislation such as abortion upon demand until the end of the
      first trimester with the exceptions for
      – rape
      – incest
      – health of the mother

  5. Yeh, blah, blah, blah!!! Go ahead, you who are pro- baby killers, go right ahead and keep pretending the legislature is rushing ahead. The matter of slowing down in moving this most legitimate process forward is about saving life. Yeh, go ahead and keep championing abortion and let the dead baby pile keep growing. Forget about the word responsibility. Keep making babies and kill the child the next day.

    1. Lets say your statement of, people making babies and kill them the very next day is accurate. Is it really just that black&white of a subject? Do you honestly think that’s the only reasons people have abortions? Be that as it may, why does it concern or effect you about what a woman does with her body? YOU wanna talk about overreacting and stepping out of your lane, well it doesn’t get any better than this topic here. I think its hypocritical of anyone to push their moral, religious and ethical views on everyone and make it LAW! What’s stopping law makers from doing even more than tell a woman she can’t have an abortion, where do we draw the line on how far government can go when it comes to your personal choices? A woman’s choice has absolutely nothing to do with you, a complete stranger who wants his opinion to be the law of the land. ridiculous

    2. Now you aren’t sounding any more rational and your arguments are no more persuasive than the “abortion is healthcare” extremists.

      You aren’t in line with the majority and a middle ground is necessary, or, yes, you can expect “Irish Troubles” levels of violence. Which is perhaps what you want. I already think plenty on the left want this.

      The legislature IS rushing. Kansas referendum should teach them something. It’s a state more conservative than Indiana and outright abortion band lost by a hefty margin.

    3. Lauren B. – The anti-abortion forces in Kansas thought voters in their deep red state would repeal the state constitutional right to a woman’s right to choose and boy were they ever wrong. It’s a classic example of only being in tune with your own echo chamber, and not understanding that it is rarely ever representative of the majority in society. The voter turn-out in Kansas was the highest of any mid-term election in years, and the majority spoke loudly and largely by a landslide 60-40 to keep that state’s constitutional provision. If Indiana legislators have any sense at all, they will take the exit ramp offer by calmer minds and keep Indiana’s state law as is.

    4. @Patrick Actually, it’s not a baby “the next day” – but, hey, take it out then and you incubate it.

  6. The “pause” will only be detrimental to the unborn that are aborted during the “pause”. Chamber is just doing their job. They are always foccussed on the money, $, money.

  7. I’m going to say this again loudly for those in the back: We don’t vote on civil rights that’s what makes them rights. The General Assembly needs to take this bill out to the north parking light and set it a fire like it was a book they don’t like. I can’t believe we even have to have this conversation. So, here’s the simplest solution: to amend the Indiana Constitution it takes a simple majority vote in both houses (no governor involved), then approved again by a simple majority in the next session after a general election, and finally if that happens it is put on the ballot to get a simple majority vote to become an amendment. There is one way to make that happen, unfortunately it’s we’ll have to vote on civil rights……

    1. The Supreme Court says differently. That is the crux of the situation. Abortion is NOT a civil right and never has been. If you take that approach, then the “civil rights” of the unborn person has to be considered too.

    2. Neil, it WAS a civil right for 50 years until McConnel et al improperly stacked SCOTUS with theocratic judges.

  8. If one runs as a right to life candidate then bales because of political pressure that person is what everyone says they hate about our elected officials. If you believe in your heart something is wrong should you not stay the course?

  9. Hey, I have an idea. Lets vote on it. I think when the Supreme Court decided to send it back to the states, they wanted actual vote of the citizens in these states have their say.
    This is probably the one thing the “pro choice” people don’t want to happen. They fear democratic action rather than fighting with a small number of politicians. Both sides know that generally speaking, politicians are weak and more afraid of what the media think than voting their conscience and letting the chips fall where they will fall.

    1. Neil D. – If deep red Kansas voted overwhelmingly to keep their pro-choice constitutional right, what makes you think Indiana would be any different? The GOP base is NOT representative of the population as a whole, as they tend to be more extreme in their views. So I support your call for a referendum on this issue, but caution you to be careful of what you seek.

    2. Abortion knows no political divide – just as many women who vote Republican have had terminations or support it, no doubt. If nothing else, Kansas shows that. Republican mistresses, too – wasn’t there one the other year?….

  10. If a woman is fit and competent to make her own medical decisions then why should there be a carve-out for her reproductive rights? Why should someone she’s never met have a say in her choices? Why should someone from Fort Wayne/Evansville/Richmond/Terre Haute have any rights to or a voice regarding another woman’s body, specifically the uterus? Why should any other person feel the authority to tell a woman, of sound mind, what she can and can not handle?

    I am blown away at the audacity of some of the comments I have heard from people. If you are worried for someone’s soul – pray for them. The relationship an individual has with God, the King of Kings, our Lord of Lords, the Father, our Abba, Elohim, El-Shaddai, Yahweh, Jehovah, or Adonai is PERSONAL. It doesn’t need to be on a t-shirt or a tattoo on an arm. There are significantly larger problems in our world today; focus your efforts on eating those elephants.

    Speaking as a Republican, our party speaks all the time about small government and this is one of those times we need to step into our own backyard and re-read the yard rules.

    1. Quote: carve-out

      A prescient pair of words you chose, Deena, whether or not you intended to. Think about it.

    1. 40,000 visitors make a significant economic impact. More importantly women are choosing to relocate to states that are more friendly to human rights. Employers already have difficulty attracting top talent here, and the social issues that Indiana has already chosen to legislate deter people even more. A full abortion ban will cause women to look elsewhere for employment.

      The number of women I know that are talking about leaving Indiana would shock you. Smart, highly talented high wage earners. Gilead isn’t somewhere people want to live.

    2. JO – At what point or circumstances would you stop abortions??

      1). End of the first trimester? Second Trimester?
      2). Abort up until the moment of birth?
      3). Abort a girl because you wanted a boy?
      4). Abort a boy with a minor disability because you want an athletic child?
      5). Abort a baby that for some reason might not be the baby developing into
      a child that you expect??
      6). What if a woman is late in her second trimester and the father wants her to
      have the baby??
      7). What if unborn is aborted for simply having the wrong eye or hair color??

      There are many questions that need to be answered in the abortion legislation debate. It’s not just as simple as a abortion on demand or banning abortion.

      Many are lambasting the religious right for their pro life views. But the leftwing
      abortion on demand have not thought things through either regarding
      reasonable limitations.

    3. @ Keith Actually, it is that simple. Women get to say what happens with their bodies – if you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one. I suspect you would be amazed at the number of people you know who have made that choice.

    4. Jolt R –
      So in your view there should be NO reasonable limitations?

      Even in the third trimester when a baby is fully forming??
      When a healthy baby can live outside the womb??
      At that point it’s about the life of a second person also. It’s not just about
      the mother unless the mothers health is in jeopardy.

    5. @Keith. I don’t believe I said anything about limitations. I think most people would agree with a sensible compromise – access to termination up to 12-15 weeks. After that, there should be exceptions for life of the mother and catastrophe situations. Stop conflating the issue.

  11. A woman should have the right to determine choices for her own healthcare and reproductive rights. These are personal choices and should not be determined by the courts or legislatures. It would be wrong to further limit access.

  12. Republicans and the Dems should produce a bipartisan abortion bill and let the
    voters vote on this matter. A referendum.

    This was done in Kanasa this week. It was a real eye opener for the R’s.

  13. Let’s be honest about the Chamber’s position. For corporations, abortions are much cheaper than paying for a pregnancy and delivery. You also have to factor in the cost of healthcare the resulting dependent for up to 26 years, not to mention downtime from maternity leave and moms missing days when their offspring is sick. It’s simply an accounting calculation by the cynical folks at the chamber; abortions save money and downtime.

    1. What an interesting take. Most articles I’ve read have been concerned that declining birth rates will result in declining economic output. I’m happy with birth rates declining because it’s better for the climate, but I don’t speak for corporate America. I’m pretty sure you’re the only person who thinks the Chamber of Commerce wants abortion to save money for corporations.

    2. It is also what has expanded the US workforce by a large percentage, allowing women to control what they want to do with their lives, so businesses are not a cynical as you state.

    3. Wesley H; you need to go beyond reading in your echo chamber. Quite a few, including prize winning columnist John Kass, have written about the cynical real reason why corporations support abortion.

  14. Having the Supreme court overturn Roe v Wade should have been the last thing the Republicans wanted. This has been a successful wedge issue since the 1970’s when Republicans realized they could get the Catholic vote over the issue. They have weaponized this wedge issue since the 1980’s to pull in Evangelical Christain voters. As a matter of fact they have been so successful with their manufactured outrage and propaganda, they now have a good percentage of their base believing that they have always been outraged. So if they do less than a total ban, then they will be excoriated by some 30% of their base and we will see even more radical candidates voted in in the in the primaries.

    Meanwhile it seems like with the Kansas vote, there is some 2/3 of the population that believe this should not be criminalized, and there are going to be some shifts in the Indiana voting base if they do criminalized it. In Indiana it might not be enough to lose the supermajority they now enjoy, but it might be enough to make politicians realize that they may have created a monster with years of divisive propaganda on this particular wedge issue.

    There might be some wisdom in doing a pause, but in the Republican spirit of letting the house burn to make a political point, it might be fun to see Republicans pass a ban and see what burns. Republicans have invested many more years in making this a wedge issue, so it might take longer than the RFRA fiasco resolve.

    1. Dan M –
      Both sides of this debate should pause and work on a reasonable sensible
      solution that people will accept.

      I agree that this does feel like RFRA all over again. But the thing with RFRA
      it was an overreaction ( hysteria like your hair is on fire ) by the leftwing activists.
      There was literally nothing in that legislation that discriminated against the
      LBGT’s. Nothing!!
      It was also legislation that was not needed. People were getting along fine.

  15. Having lobbied in the Indiana legislature for six years in the 2000’s, I can assure you that most legislators not from Central Indiana care little to not at all about the damage that this legislation will cause, as the largest negative impact will be to what they jealously referred to as the “unholy triangle”, which runs from Bloomington to W. Lafayette to Indianapolis. Sadly, their myopia continues unabated.

    1. Agreed on that.
      Outside of Indy area most legislators don’t give a dam about Indy area

  16. Republicans voted against a ballot referendum . Which could be their error as now the entire election can be used by the people as their referendum . Vote R if you want to tolerate their restrictions of your healthcare decisions . Vote D if you won’t tolerate them preempting your right to make your own healthcare decisions.

  17. Anyone reading the first-hand accounts of actual medical professionals would understand that NO legislature should be inserting itself into the minutiae of medical care.

    As Charles said (above), “there is no good time to inject Republican theocratic autocratic political opinions into the private healthcare decisions that belong to women with their choice of medical expert advisors. Women have human and civil rights to make those decisions themselves.”

  18. Aren’t the members of The Chamber of Commerce the same people who are clamoring for workers? Does it occur to those dimwits that the more people killed in the womb today will mean even fewer workers available to enter the workforce pool in 20 or so years? Talk about dead-end thinking…in more ways than one.

    1. Bob, ideology is more important to the Establishment elitist than realty. But this plays into there open board, reduced wage narrative.

      Understanding that global integration can not be obtained if the socially economic metrics are not properly aligned with other 3rd world SH’s.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}