Republican leaders in the Indiana Senate on Wednesday proposed legislation that would ban abortions from conception except in cases of rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother, ending weeks of speculation on how restrictive their proposal would be after the U.S. Supreme Court turned such decisions over to the states.
“We in the pro-life movement have long believed in exceptions to abortion restrictions for the life of the mother, and that is reflected in our legislation,” Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, said in a written statement. “In addition, we recognize there are heartbreaking cases where, because of violence committed against women and young girls, providing some additional exceptions is necessary. That’s why the legislation we are introducing provides exceptions for cases of rape and incest, which I believe a majority of Hoosiers support.”
Glick and Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, unveiled the legislation at a Statehouse news conference in advance of a special legislative session that begins Monday and also will consider ways to use a portion of the state’s $6.1 billion in reserves to provide inflation relief to Hoosiers.
Indiana Democrats immediately attacked the bill as a setback for women, because it would ban abortion in nearly all cases. It also would not make exceptions for the health of the mother, such as a woman with kidney disease who would be forced to give up dialysis during pregnancy, and could get seriously ill as a result.
“It’s a clear indication we’re in trouble and Indiana is taking a step back in regard to women’s health,” said Senate Democratic Leader Greg Taylor of Indianapolis.
Glick said it was important to note that the Senate’s proposed abortion legislation does not affect: access to the morning-after pill or any other method of birth control; treatment of miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies; in-vitro fertilization procedures; or prohibit ending a pregnancy when the unborn child would not be able to survive due to a fatal fetal anomaly.
She said the bill also does not criminalize women seeking an abortion or create any new penalties for doctors who perform abortions. Doctors, however, would continue to be subject to having their licenses revoked if they perform an illegal abortion.
The bill says physicians can use “reasonable medical judgment” based on the facts known at the time that would be made by a “reasonably prudent physician” who is knowledgeable about the treatment possibilities.
Senate GOP leadership also is proposing a $45 million Hoosier Families First Fund for a variety of programs to support pregnant women and children. They also propose increasing the state’s adoption tax credit from from $1,000 to $10,000, costing the state another $5 million.
The Senate’s proposal is just the first step of a legislative process that is expected to last two or three weeks and could be altered along the way, especially as it heads to the House, where Republican leaders have yet to disclose their preferences.
Indiana appears to be the first Republican-led state to take up new abortion legislation since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that held the Constitution protected a woman’s right to an abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb. Republicans hold supermajorities in the Indiana House and Senate.
Other states jumped in even before the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Over the last year, 13 states enacted so-called “trigger laws” banning abortions under most conditions—laws that automatically took effect once the Supreme Court ruled.
Abortions are now legal in Indiana up through 22 weeks of pregnancy (after a women’s last menstrual period), with certain exceptions afterward for medical emergencies.
Under current Indiana law, abortions must be performed by a licensed physician. After the first trimester of pregnancy, abortions must be performed in a hospital or licensed surgical center. Before getting abortions, patients must undergo an 18-hour waiting period. Providers are required to show patients a color brochure about fetal development, fetal viability and the risks of surgical abortion.
The bill would need to clear both houses of the Indiana General Assembly and be signed by Gov. Eric Holcomb in order to become law.
Reaction to the bill came in swiftly on Wednesday.
“It is unconscionable that Indiana Republicans are gambling with the lives of Hoosier women to gain points in an ultimately unwinnable culture war,” said House Democratic Leader Phil GiaQuinta, D-Fort Wayne. “The choice to have an abortion is a personal decision that ought to be left up to a woman and her health care provider, not Republicans who are playing doctor in the Indiana Statehouse.”
State Rep. Chris Campbell, D-West Lafayette, said the social, cultural, medical and economic toll of a ban on abortion will be devastating to Indiana. “I am committed to fighting for Hoosier women in this special session and defending our freedom of choice,” he said.
LaKimba DeSadier, Indiana State Director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates Indiana said the proposed ban would prevent providers from giving legal and safe care. “Even the bill’s limited exemptions would leave providers risking investigations, and even criminalization, making them exceptions in name only,” she said.
The president of Indiana Right to Life, one of the state’s largest anti-abortion groups, called the bill “weak” and “troubling.”
“As the bill reads now, the 8,000-plus abortions that take place annually in Indiana would continue unabated in counties like Marion County where the prosecutor has already stated he will not enforce the law,” Mike Fichter said in written remarks. “That is unacceptable and pro-life Hoosiers will not silently let that stand.”
.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
I’d like to see the Indiana Republicans release the poll that they conducted in the last two months… since it reportedly showed majority support for not just the rape/incest/life of the mother provisions, but also first trimester abortions.
If the poll doesn’t show support for abortion, why not release it and show us all the results?
Backward state. Hopefully the semiconductor company that announced a new plant earlier today pulls its investment and moves to a state that doesn’t push their religious ideology on everyone.
Is it progressive to allow abortionists to use forceps to rip off the legs of a baby when it’s finishing the third trimester–when the woman is going through contractions?
Y’all and your “progress” is just so gosh darn goofy!
Let’s hear it for backwardness.
I’m still pro-choice (I’d prefer it legal through the first trimester) but if it takes abortion-up-to-birth (as is legal in many “progressive” states), then yeah, I think I can grudgingly settle with the concessions made in Indiana.
Yet again Lauren shows up with another of his/her strawman arguments.
In the state of Indiana, abortion is currently illegal after 22 weeks.
The Indiana Republican response to that is to lower the number to zero despite getting poll results that reportedly show significant, if not majority, support for first trimester abortions.
I think you are deliberately misstating who the aggressor is in this situation.
And before you all misstate my position, I am supportive of lowering the number from 22 weeks to 12-15 weeks in conjunction with a significant boost in women’s health spending far and above what has currently been proposed.
@ lauren….oh, pleeeese….ripping the legs off a baby full term? Yeah, happens ..er..never.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2016/10/20/no-late-term-abortions-dont-rip-babies-out-of-wombs-but-they-are-needed/?sh=45cfde835cf8
Another reminder when it comes to the extremists, maybe it’s the anti-abortion folks.
“Indiana Right to Life just had a virtual media briefing – but didn’t take questions. They aren’t happy with the direction of the abortion bills.”
https://twitter.com/nkellyIN/status/1549758557079441408
So, not happy that victims of rape/incest can get abortions, or unhappy that women have to risk death to prove a doctor wrong that they have a pregnancy they likely wanted that could kill them?
And the amount of money is pitiful given that Indiana is already a dangerous state to get pregnant and deliver a baby – our maternal outcomes are already awful. Let’s say that $45 million dollars is passed and 8,000 abortions a year are prevented, and that money is spent on each of those women. That’s $5,625 a woman in additional help… and that’s just for the first year. I can betcha that whomever came up with that number has not a clue how expensive it is to have a kid these days, and that’s excluding the six figure costs of raising them to adulthood.
Like I’ve said, we are now finding out that a lot of those people who claimed to be pro-life are really only anti-abortion. They are extremists and it’s plainly obvious to all.
I can appreciate your concern about religion but I don’t see that playing a role here. Religious or not, who wouldn’t take a risk to save a child that runs out into the middle of oncoming traffic? Even science, (following the science), tells us that there is a live human being in the mothers womb. Is it NOT murder simply because we can’t physically see the child, as we do in the scenario I described? Reading the signs in these many protests, the major argument is that it endangers the life of the mother, (interestingly enough we don’t care about the baby because we can’t see it). Indiana got this one right. It addresses the major issues surrounding the protest; life of the mother, incest, and rape. Even in these scenarios, we are choosing the life we see in exchange for the life we don’t see. Any other reason for taking the childs life is purely evil. It’s not about Religion, it’s about right and wrong…
Joe and the others are pretending there’s nuance here. Abortion is the premier black-or0white situation. You either see the unborn as human or not. And if you don’t, you’ve determine women’s lib should supersede science. One could argue that true “progress” is standing up for the weakest and vulnerable–historically a left-wing view, but in this case dominated by the religious right.
You think (are deluded into thinking) that women are victims. Yet they have every form of contraception available, reinforced by this bill. Abortion doctors (often male) face the greatest punishment, not the mothers. And the pro-life movement has become emboldened through GREATER female participation in politics, not less. Women are a majority of registered voters, due in no small part because of that horrible patriarchy that ensures men constitute 85%+ of the incarcerated population and 90%+ of workplace fatalities. The patriarchy truly is running roughshod, LOL. In short, lots of women are pro-life and they vote for pro-life legislators. A buckle-of-the-bible-belt state like Alabama has elevated a woman into the state’s highest office.
Back before the left jumped off the ideological cliff, the pro-life contingent (basically silent in 2022) saw babies as the weakest members of society…often divorced entirely from religion. Today it’s “marginalized people” and usually includes demographic subsets who get unabashed federal and corporate support, and most of these people are upper-middle or even upper income to begin with. Trans rights are incredibly bourgeois; the leaders of BLM are college educated multi-millionaires. The class war has been subverted through identity politics.
Bearing in mind that I accept abortions up to the first trimester, I technically condone murder based on this logic. I do so in the attempt to reconcile what I believe is critical in arguments of bodily autonomy. But it always involves another life that never has a voice. Which is why, if we wish to balance bodily autonomy against humanity we find a compromise. The “safe legal rare” compromise was a set time frame. Without that timeframe, it all becomes arbitrary…which no doubt explains why the Maryland legislature is now floating a bill that allow women to kill their BORN children in first 30 days: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2022RS/bills/sb/sb0669f.pdf
Women are not victims. When they abort another life, they are the aggressors. The only nuance comes when we question how they were impregnated, but even in the case of rape (by which most people, myself included, believe abortion should be permitted), the greater aggression is occurring against the fetus–a hapless third party who didn’t decide to be conceived, but most people (myself have included) it is reasonable to deny the fetus its humanity on account of the atrocity of rape.
An extremist push from one political end causes a similarly reflexive response from the other political end. We already have multiple states with abortion illegal up to five minutes before birth. This has galvanized the pro-life contingent, a community to which I don’t belong but at least seek to understand.
Can you just focus on the Indiana law for five minutes and cease with the whatabout business with some liberal destination none of us live in that is irrelevant?
Here’s the reality – current law is 22 weeks. I accept that there is an easy compromise between 0 and 22 weeks – it’s called the first trimester, 12-15 weeks.
However, turns out most abortions are first trimester abortions. So the anti-abortion folks will not accept that compromise. That’s not the fault of those seeking to maintain the status quo, that’s the anti-abortion folks being extreme.
And I don’t see a push from the anti-abortion folks for more birth control. They foolishly think that if you ban abortion, there won’t be any. We all know that’s malarkey.
Why not try to push more birth control, drive down the number of unintended pregnancies, thereby driving down the number of abortions?
If they cared about babies, or mothers, they’d see a $45 million dollar increase in funding for women as not nearly enough. They’d add a zero since maternal outcomes in Indiana are awful. They would drive to make Indiana the best state in America to be a pregnant woman, instead of it being one of the worst. If they were doing things on that front, I’d actually have some sympathy for their position.
But because they don’t, I don’t think it’s about abortion and it’s definitely not about babies. They’re not pro-life. They’re just anti-abortion.
And by the way, many third trimester abortions are not from convenience, they’re from women who’ve lost a baby they’ve wanted to have. Have some sympathy for those folks.
NOT OK!
Kill more babies, it’s good for jobs!
The meager $45 million dollar increase for women’s health tells you Republicans don’t really care about the babies …
A true pro-life state would have spent far more with $6 billion in reserves.
I am a Republican and prochoice. I also know I’m not smart enough to have the answer. I grew up in Indiana where the first trimester is allowed and that’s what I would vote for. Consensual sex has consequences. Guys can get vasectomies for $1,000. Women and men can say no. States’ rights should rule and now we can vote on it.
Same position I have, and I’m not a Republican.
The one disagreement: that you’re not smart enough to have the answer. You’re no doubt plenty smart; but there is no answer.
There is no such thing as a perfectly morally consistent worldview. Never will be. Otherwise we’d achieve utopia by following it. But wise people know that is unattainable.
Abortion seems to be the best way of pointing out the impossibility of a 100% morally consistent stance.
You’re the one dying out Bob P. All of these right wing moves are last gasp efforts to keep other repressed. Society and culture are changing like it or not. By 2050 there will be a collective of more non-white identified people in this country. It belongs to everyone and people have rights (not just 2nd Amendment ones which are the only ones that seem to be supported by the GOP) to choose. That includes Religion which is fine, just don’t force those beliefs on others.
I’m just thankful that my birth mother at 14 years old had the courage to have me and give me up for adoption.
this says it all https://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=george+carlin+preborn&view=detail&mid=66FC62759F0DCF74772266FC62759F0DCF747722&form=VDRVSR&ajaxhist=0
I know this is not the focus, but a 10-fold increase the adoption tax credit to $10k? Wow. With the federal adoption tax credit of $14k, that should cover most if not all costs for domestic adoptions. That’s great news, no matter what one thinks about the abortion restrictions.
conservative’s views lol https://www.bing.com/videos/search?&q=george+carlin+preborn&view=detail&mid=2D4F71FCCDB7E35698802D4F71FCCDB7E3569880&form=VDRVRV&ajaxhist=0
PS, Lauren, there is no such thing as an “abortionist” They are OBGYN’S
Sam, she was merely parroting Rokita’s inflammatory rhetoric. She know not of what she speaks. As usual.
Except of course that the majority of ob-gyns don’t perform abortions. Can I use the term “abortion provider”? Not all ob-gyns are that either.
Even the New York Times is calling Caitlin Bernard an “abortion provider”–you don’t like “abortionist” because it sounds more inflammatory, but the two are semantically identical. Kind of like “colored people” and “persons of color”.
This isn’t a linguistic game. I don’t play those games. And I remain pro-choice and would vote for such, if given the option in Indiana, or North Carolina, or wherever I’m living should such a referendum come by. But I can see why the pro-choicers are losing the argument at the broader cultural level, and it’s not just because of the Roe Effect. I mean, when you’ve got people like Brent on your team, what can you expect? And yet he’s still an improvement over the front-line activists. Watch the videos in front of SCOTUS, and the most common word used by the pro-choicers is “F–k!” So persuasive.
The majority of people in they country want abortion safe and legal – with restrictions. And that’s a fact with actually Mississippi’s 15 week law being reasonable for most people, I think. Abortions will never stop – now they are just available to the wealthy, as they always have been and always will be. Across both sides of the aisle.
Bunch of hogwash. In vitro fertilization – frozen embryos are okay? Why? I though they are babies. You’d freeze a baby? That’s torture. Isn’t that why you’re trying to ban first trimester abortions because life begins at conception? I’ll never shut up about it. You either believe women have autonomy over their bodies or you don’t. Indiana republicans don’t. I hope every last Republican who signs off on this loses his job. Makes Indiana look backwards and unappealing.
It’s clear Meredith doesn’t understand “science.”
A “frozen embryo” is very different than a 20 week child.
Having autonomy over your body doesn’t mean ending the life of another body.
Maybe someday society can live in the gray area politicians divide us from.
Please educate me oh wise J C B. They want to ban even first trimester abortions. Why? If an embryo = a child how is a frozen embryo any different?
Interesting. Democrats’ playbook is to wail in agony about rape/incest/life of the mother, but the second they get the exception, they immediately pivot to “but that’s just a tiny percentage!!” No kidding…
Instead of wailing hyperbole analogies, what specifically to you want? When is it ok to terminate a pregnancy? 20 weeks? 30? 40?
Shout out to Joe B for actually stating a number, although your fellow Democrats would lose their mind at 12 weeks.
Actually, Chuck, it’s the anti-abortion extremists who’d lose their minds with a 12 week ban. From the Indiana Right to Life Facebook page:
“Indiana Republican State Senator Kyle Walker issues statement of support for leaving abortions legal for 12-15 weeks; such a law would leave 99% of Indiana abortions legal, equivalent to 8,309 of the 8,414 babies aborted in Indiana in 2021.”
https://www.facebook.com/IndianaRTL
All this is unthinkable and does not make a bit of sense why there is such contention with the idea of conception. As Indiana has outlined, there certainly are reasons to end a pregnancy such as protecting the the medical condition of the mother [not birthing-person], incest, or any other reason that is critically dangerous to giving birth. Men and women can either abstain, take birth control, use protection, and there is even the day-after pill. It is not difficult to understand, so what is the issue here? Do the right thing and be responsible. A heartbeat is a person, period. You don’t end a life because you just feel like it, then go out mess around and do the same thing over and over again. It is hard to believe what this has turned into. Pro-life people, how do you think you got here?
There is no heartbeat at conception. Birth control isn’t 100% effective.
We can debate this forever, but I just think that a civilized country should not be killing children, whether they have made it through the birth canal or not. Life is life. We don’t condone a parent killing their three week or three month child, why is ok to kill a child that hasn’t been born yet??
Some late term abortions occur because the fetus has been discovered to have developed significant defects in the third trimester…defects that would unquestionably result in the death of the newborn. Under such scenarios, it would seem the pro-life individual is in fact condoning these children to certain death at three weeks or three months. You ask “why is it okay to kill a child that hasn’t been born yet.” So it must be okay to wait and “kill” the child after it is born?
Birth control is not 100%. Some women (many) do not have regular periods when on birth control and thus, do not know that they are pregnant very early on (many of the symptoms of early pregnancy are the same as what you get before a period or when in birth control). Many people have no business being parents. The decision should be left between the woman and her obgyn. Currently the majority of women seeking abortion is during first trimester, and they are at or below the poverty line. The current support in Indiana is not enough if you want to force unwanted children to be born. Hell… daycare for my 1 kid costs twice the amount per year than I paid in college tuition a year. Add in supply shortage of formula, the pandemic, the lack of affordable healthcare coverage for women’s health and therapy… you are setting up the mother and baby for failure. I am blessed to have an equal partner, a two income household, and a home. Being a mother is the single hardest thing I’ve had to do (and that is with me wanting and loving being a mom). I would never wish this on a woman who doesn’t have the mindset for motherhood, with a non-supportive partner, or less than stable income. Her choice does not affect you.
Joe B, Lauren B, JCB, et. al. aren’t far apart.
It’s career politicians who push us all as far apart as possible.
Let’s all learn to live in the gray area.
20 weeks of less? Incest, rape, life of the Mom? These are all reasonable exceptions versus the extremists who say 41 weeks is ok?!?
There are ample opportunities for people to abstain, use contraceptives, Plan B, etc. and countless millions of tax dollars spent on “education”.
Let’s quit the hypocrisy of “my body my choice”. It was debunked in 2020.
You’re welcome IBJ comment nation…
So let’s talk this gray area idea through.
The current state is abortion is banned after 22 weeks. Best I can tell, that’s right in the middle between 0 and 41 weeks.
For some reason, those crazy liberals out at 41 weeks aren’t getting as called out as those crazy conservatives at 0 weeks.
So I await all of you who want to live in the gray area to shout down the Indiana Republican legislators who came up with this plan in private caucus and likely made sure it had 26 votes before they publicized it. Their idea of compromise is the rape and incest provisions.
Because barring an outcry, this bill will pass out of the Senate next week.
What I meant to say was
For some reason, those crazy conservatives at 0 weeks aren’t getting called out as much as the crazy liberals at 41 weeks.
J C B is correct. Joe B and I aren’t that far apart. It’s more about where we stand toward how the institutions are treating major cultural issues.
If “those crazy liberals” aren’t getting called out at 41 weeks, it may be because 95% of the most well-funded media outlets don’t report them because they agree with them.
I didn’t even know until the Ralph Northam incident in Virginia back in 2019 that we actually had states that allowed abortion up until birth. And we have more states that allow it in 2022. In a rational social/political setting, we shouldn’t have to make a Sophie’s Choice: a decision between rendering all abortions illegal versus abortions up to birth. But the institutions that report on social/political issues have absolved themselves of any neutrality and all the basic journalistic codes of ethics, further prompting the polarization on this and so many other issues.
Thankfully these institutions are collapsing in credibility. As they should.
Can you hit us up with the statistics on these third trimester abortions, since you are so infatuated with them?
Make sure to break them out by choice and by medical necessity (aka life of the mother) since the second category will remain sadly needed and legal.
And percentage in the total number of abortions.
I’ll wait.
This entire subject is WAY TOO COMPLICATED for Republican politicians that can’t even agree about when a election is over and who the winner is. A woman has a right to make her own decisions .
Thank you, Charles B. Best comment of the entire thread. Especially the last line: A woman has a right to make her own decisions.
+1
Reproductive rights are an exclusively female privilege. Women are not oppressed.
I remain pro-choice, but I am so glad there’s a voice speaking on behalf of the unborn, who are humans from the very moment of conception, as the science corroborates.
Without that voice speaking on their behalf, we’d have legal infanticide for women who have misgivings. Given the leniency we’ve seen toward murderous women suffering post-partum depression (Andrea Yates, coming from the pro-life state of Texas), we knew this was coming.
This issue will never get resolved. Far better to let the people decide through their legislatures.
For all those wanting to pack SCOTUS, they should send their gratitude to Clarence Thomas for being the principal person arguing that a bunch of unelected, appointed-for-life elites should not have so much power. Funny, they don’t seem to be thanking him all that much…
SCOTUS has already been packed. McConnell won. Where ya been?
That’s funny that Lauren claims she remains “pro-choice” even as her state government prepares to make her “choices” illegal” (unless she chooses to go to California, Illinois, New York or another state that will actually let women make their own decisions).
Best to error on side of life rather than side of death. When abortions are banned, the legislation should also include provisions for pregnant women that choose not to care for their babies after birth to be provided with 100%, high-quality prenatal care and housing if needed for the time of pregnancy during which time the person in the womb will be placed for adoption. Any job such pregnant women may hold should also be legislated to be available for return to work after delivery. There should be a holistic solution enacted that respects everyone involved. We must make it so attractive and desirable for any pregnant woman to choose delivery over death that it is a no-brainer decision.