Abortion

Indiana Is Latest State to Pass Restrictive Abortion Bill Claiming Safety

|

The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood filled suit against the state of Indiana over the recently passed law that bans abortions sought for genetic disorders, such as Down syndrome.

Republican Governor Mike Pence's office believes the bill works as a safety measure and "enhances protection for the unborn."

But denying a woman's access to an abortion, the lawsuit counters, counts as an "undue burden" against her fundamental rights.

Indiana is the latest state to have conservatives legislators pass restrictive abortion laws under the pretense of safety. Former Reason TV producer Amanda Winkler covered a similar situation in Virginia when the Board of Health approved facilities regulations to close abortion clinics in the state.

NEXT: The Costless Fix to Europe's Jihadi Problem

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The interesting part here too is that the ACLU has been promoting state-funding of abortion on safety grounds too

    1. the ACLU has been promoting state-funding of abortion on safety grounds

      “safety”?

      I’m not sure what their argument is, but i was always under the impression that when the person paying the bills is an immune-from-lawsuits 3rd party that it tends to have the effect of lowering standards.

    2. Yippee, another abortion thread.

      Can we get one on circumcision next?

      1. With the proximity of Indiana to Chicago, a more natural fit would be a deep dish (casserole) vs real pizza thread.

        1. Best pizza in the Dallas area? (It’s a trick question!)

          1. A random cardboard box from a dumpster?

          2. Hey, we have good pizza!

      2. Kosher dill vs chicken neck.

      3. “Yippee, another abortion thread.
        Can we get one on circumcision next?”

        Is there a place where they offer a package deal? Asking for a friend.

      4. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/WbbNre

        1. Interesting that this bot should pop up as soon as circumcision is mentioned.

      5. Grab it’s penis!

    3. Actually, the really interesting part is that “Hank Phillips”, who turns EVERY comment on any article into a raving manifesto about the GOP and restricting abortion, has failed to comment on an article about restricting abortion.

      Maybe that’s just too obvious for him.

      1. Uh oh. Better watch out. Now he’ll come in here calling you a lair for saying “EVERY” comment he makes is about abortion.

  2. “But denying a woman’s access to an abortion, the lawsuit counters, counts as an “undue burden” against her fundamental rights.”

    Whoa whoa whoa, I thought lefties were all about more regulations all the time! I thought that any criticism of any regulations at all was drivel spewed off by the Koch-funded propaganda machine!

    If regulations on abortion clinics are violating her rights, what about her right to work for whatever wage she agrees on with an employer? What about her right to carry whatever type of firearm she thinks appropriate for self-defense? What about her right to sell sexual services for money?

    Are regulations good or bad? I’m confused! Help me, AmSoc!

    1. The ratchet only goes one way.

      1. To the left!!!

  3. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see nothing in the two linked articles that claim in Indiana any “pretense of safety” (save that of what they seem to see as an unborn child).

    1. I wonder why they think it’s a child?

      1. Maybe it’s the two hands, two feet and the recoiling from a foreign object that causes them to think that way.

        Or maybe it’s the unique DNA and brainwaves.

        Who knows for sure, though.

        1. recoiling from a foreign object

          Is it a penis?

          1. Not unless Long Dong Silver is doing the abortion.

            1. +1 Anita Hill

          2. The penis doesn’t pass through the cervix into the uterus.

              1. It’s not length but diameter. Only a very thin object can pass through the cervix–except during birth.

                So congratulations are in order–I guess.

                1. Wait, are pencil-dick jokes in order?

                2. (sad trombone)

        2. The fetus only becomes a person when it is slapped on the butt by a licensed doctor, right?

          1. Excuse the phrasing, but I don’t know whether those pushing the legislation actually consider it an unborn child or not. I’ve learned I can never be too cynical when it comes to politicians and activists.

            1. Progtards only consider it a person after being delivered. And I imagine they have carve outs for THAT too. Kind of like their abortion messiah, Dr. Gosnell.

              1. My concern was that if they won’t defend outlawing aborting a Down Syndrome baby, will they defend outlawing aborting a gay black Down Syndrome baby? How much of a privilege imbalance do we have to have between the mother and the baby for them to say the mother can’t abort the misssion?

        3. ‘Brainwaves’

          My dog has brainwaves too, and is more of a person than any fetus.

          1. Sounds like your dog is more of a person than you, based on your own lack of brainwaves.

  4. OT: has anyone else noticed that “sponsored content” for the Charles Koch Institute or something? It almost makes me want to join just so I can get some bumper stickers and t-shirts with his name on it. The conniption fits of “progressives” would make me squeal with delight.

    1. Way ahead of you bro

    2. My reaction would Depend on how much money you have. If rich, an asshole. If poor, a sucker.

      1. But I bet you would praise a Bernie bumper sticker. After all how could you be an asshole supporting an unapologetic cheerleader for murderous communist regimes? Hating someone who provides useful goods and services is way more reasonable.

        1. All of his reactions involve Depends. Because he’s so full of shit.

    3. You mean like the reactions I get with my “Euthanize Progressives” T-shirts?

  5. A death rate of 3 per million seems rather small for so much concern, and less regulation is always better. Probably the retroactive application of regulations is too much. Nonetheless, I don’t see why abortion clinics should be treated any different than other outpatient clinics.

    1. Perhaps they should be treated differently because an unborn child is being killed?

      NAAAAAAAAH

      fuck you and reason for supporting this disgusting blood sport

      1. And you have a reading comprehension problem.

        1. No, that person has read that there is not a lock-step, religiously-oriented vehement opposition to abortion around here. Therefore, lacking that means everyone here, and reason in general, have blood dripping from their hands.

      2. Look, the Kumite must be regulated! Frank Dux can’t be expected to fight blind every time!

      3. Sounds like someone has stepped outside their church-sponsored safe space echo chamber.

  6. Don’t care, Joshua. This issue isn’t central to Libertarian Critical Theory Studies, which is exclusively about how lower taxes promotes economic growth and Rearden Metal so, by all means, if white men in Bloomington want to strap a women down in a gurney because she mentions the word abortion who are we to care? I’m here because I care about Liberty– not women’s rights. That’s SJW horseshit for the uglies.

    1. Of course as this applies to reason posters this is a straw man. However it does characterize you quite well.

      Paraphrasing AS:
      “Who cares if the FDA is willing to tell women they can’t pick the medicine they want and they wind up dying. Why should I care? I’m here because I care about a woman’s right to choose. That liberty stuff is libertarian horseshit”.

    2. As long as you support central planning and government control of the economy, you have no place talking about rights.

      Either the government has all power and passes out “rights” as if sees fit, or people retain rights which the government cannot take away. Because you support the former, you have no business claiming to support the latter just because you like abortion.

    3. What if it’s a black man that wants to do it? Or a Latino dude?

      1. Not if he’s a “white” latino.

    4. AmSoc, I would fathom that the majority of libertarians are pro-choice, so your conniption fit is misplaced.

      1. Maybe. I think on this comment board it’s 50/50. Why is it not 100/0? If we can’t agree that government shouldn’t be involved in the outright totalitarian idea that government should command that a women recently made pregnant be ordained to carry that baby to term than what kind of liberty do we really believe in?

        The thing that drives me fucking out-of-my-gourd here is the selective right-wing outrage. Notice how you can still be a libertarian in perfectly good standing if you advocate that women should go through the terribly painful and invasive and unwanted process of having a kid, but lo anyone dare suggest that a local government can mandate that there be a background check to make sure a person buying a gun isn’t a nut. Because local ordinances designed to curb gun violence are TYRANNY and must be opposed by having a shoutout with the local ATF office. You go, Lavoy.

        1. You do realize we can all agree on the NAP but disagree when personhood is established, don’t you? I mean, I know you leave all of the important decisions in your life to Top Men, but there’s still room for intelligent discourse and disagreement about the beginning of life/personhood/individual rights among people with a mind of their own.

          1. Sorry, let’s not confuse– as so often is done here– first principles. If you are telling women when and where they are to have a kid or mandating that a pregnant women go to term with a baby it’s you telling them which TOP MEN they need to listen to– not the other way around. I don’t think libertarianism should be only for dicks with guns.

            1. So you think personhood begins when the person can live on their own without support? Or is it once it passes through the birth canal? Or is it some other arbitrary point in time…same as the rest of us?

              If it’s one of the first two, explain why you’re ok with destroying a human being that would likely be able to live if delivered early. If the third, explain why your point in time happens to be, with certainty that errs on the side of protection of personhood for all parties concerned, the correct time to establish personhood.

              1. I think personhood begins with heavy petting– just like our Christianist allies in the RP. My message to women is… Just don’t do it.

                1. So you refuse to answer a straightforward question.

                  Not surprised in the least.

              2. He (or her) has been on these boards how long? Maybe two years or more? He doesn’t understand the basic premises behind pro choice/life debate among Libertarians, even though we’ve been through it over and over. Think about that. He either willingly or through sheer stupidity won’t follow or comprehend anything you say. People keep trying to talk to him, and every discussion he has to try re-learn principles that people have already presented to him.

                What I’m saying is don’t talk to it in good faith. He’s a perfectly average Bernie supporter.

          2. The NAP does not protect trespassers

            1. Does trespass require intent or agency? If not, do you think it’s acceptable to shoot people that accidentally cross an unmarked property line?

              1. It’s even more than crossing an unseen property line. It’s being thrown into and tied down in someone else’s property line with no power to stop it.

              2. No, I don’t, but I’m not a libertarian. A true libertarian would say yes it acceptable to shoot anyone who is on your property for any reason.

    1. I know… Libertarian politics isn’t about sad panda serious talk about how Jeebus freaks want to outlaw abortion or, in your case, how monumentally stupid you have to be to fight in Iraq, it’s about muscle cars and shit. Awesome! You’re the best, man

      1. Well I am truly shocked. AmSoc is identi-bragging about how his limp wristed ass would never be in a muscle car or the military. Mad props yo.

      2. Yeah, um, I complied with my contracted obligations.

        How’s that mortgage of yours?

        Pig.

  7. OT: Something more interesting than abortion. Best selling “sports car” in Germany last month was a Ford

    Warning: Auto-play video which shows Henry Ford III pimping Ford’s performance division.

    In Germany, the land of the Autobahn, where speed is regarded as a national right, the best-selling sports car last month wasn’t the locally-built Porsche 911. It was the Ford Mustang.

    1. Isn’t a sports car traditionally defined as a two-seater that’s built low to the ground and for performance?

      The Mustang fails two of those.

        1. I always thought of a sports car as a two-seat coupe or roadster. The Mustang would fall under a sport coupe and something like a Charger would be a sport sedan.

          1. Usually two seaters, but not necessarily.

            Although others claim two seats a requirement.

            Prolly one of those definitions that gets blurred over time. My uncle’s 911 had 4 seats. Ima call that a sport scar.

            1. “sport scar.”

              Sorry to hear your uncle had a disfiguring accident. Football? Hockey? Archery?

          2. Mustangs, Camaros and Chargers are a subset of sports coupe (sports car) that are muscle cars. As the top engine provides a level of power output not normally available by anything else in that price range.

            1. Edit: I meant to say “Challenger”, not “Charger”. As the Charger is a four door sedan.

      1. That’s why I used quotes.

        Unless the Mustang’s back seat has gotten bigger since the mid-00s, that back seat is so small as to be unusable. However, it is still a four-seater and so not a sports car. It might be sporty, but it’s not a sports car.

        Full disclosure: My first car was a ’79 Mustang. The back seat was barely large enough for people to sit in it.

        1. Regardless of the moaning about how the mustang isn’t really a sports car, i still think its interesting that the Mustang is selling in large #s in Europe (its also doing well in the UK from what i’ve heard) having only been introduced there in 2014 (I think)

          It costs about half as much as a comparable hp 911, BMW M or Audi S series cars. They handle much better than they used to. And while they might look super-boring to american eyes, i think the design splits the difference between a boring Audi/BMW sedan look, and a more-sporty aggressive profile, which i think probably sets it apart in the European market.

      2. The Mustang is technically a 2-door sport sedan (excluding the convertible).

  8. OT: Thanks, NRA. You’re now helping states to pass laws that imprison people that have committed no crime.

    Also, the entirety of the article is an advertisement for removing agency from human beings being a good thing. Fuck that shit.

    1. “The officer told me that my husband had ended his struggle with anxiety and depression with a single bullet. Suddenly, I was a 38-year-old widow and a single parent of two young children. I was left wondering how this had happened and whether it could have been prevented. I was deeply angry at myself, at my husband, at a treatment system that failed him and at a society that made it easy to buy a pistol.”

      Yeah, it’s the fault of a free society. Maybe, sometimes people with anxiety and depression get so depressed that they decide to kill themselves. Grieve, then get to living. Worry about taking care of your kids instead of everyone else. They already have moms.

      1. Well, when aunt hillary becomes president the gun manufacturer will be held responsible for the suicide, because we all know there is no way to kill oneself other than with a gun.

    2. For too long, we’ve allowed the debate over legal rights to dominate the conversation. It’s time to give equal emphasis to what we have in common, including the grief we all feel over suicide.

      “For too long have we allowed crazy talk of freedom and liberty overcome my grief-driven need to feel like I’m making a difference in a cold, indifferent universe.”

  9. Mallory. Would.

  10. If we weren’t talking about abortion would Falls Church be one of those evil corporations putting profits in front of the health and safety of women? Also, since the left so strongly supports my ownership of my body can I now have a cigarette with my trans fat saturated pastry and chase it with some raw milk?

    1. Depends, are you gonna skim that raw milk first?

      1. Straight from the udder like God intended.

    1. So, if the girl had decided to endure the shame of carrying a fetus to the point of birth, she might have survived?

      Well, anyway, it’s good that stuff like this never happen, now that abortion is legal.

    2. As for her former neighbor, Trump acts as if he has no memory of it at all, as if it never happened, as if it is no great concern of his should such horrors return to America.

      As Trump says one thing and then another and then nothing at all, you can go to Grand Central Station in the stillness of the early morning and almost hear 19-year-old Barbara’s parting words to her father.

      “I want to kiss you now, daddy.”

      (applause)

    3. So those were professionals that also happened to be butchers and psychopaths? And TDB wants to tie Trump to them somehow?

      I’m sure that’s the first two times in the history of western civilization that two people in the same zip code, five years apart, were murdered by someone they trusted to do something illegal for them.

      I’m sure Gillespie is proud of his other employer.

    4. Your link is broken.

  11. OT: New bill would change how NH police spend seized assets

    The bill, now before a Senate committee, would reroute it all to the general fund. Supporters of the change say sending the money back to local departments gives police an incentive to take more property. Gov. Maggie Hassan has said she will veto the bill as written.

    “We don’t want to police for profit,” said Democratic Rep. Paul Berch.
    The bill would also change state law to say forfeiture proceedings can’t begin until after a person is convicted of a crime. Under existing law, the state can move forward with forfeiture efforts of property such as money or cars while criminal cases are ongoing. The bill has passed the House and is now before a Senate committee.

    Of course she would veto this bill!

  12. WI judge rules Right to Work law unconstitutional

    A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state’s right-to-work law, saying the measure is unconstitutional by banning unions from charging fees to non-union workers for certain services, court papers showed.

    Dane County Judge William Foust decided in favor of International Association of Machinists, United Steelworkers and the AFL-CIO, which filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing the law passed in 2015 by Republican lawmakers violates the state constitution.

    Before the right-to-work law was passed in Wisconsin, workers who chose not to be a member of a union at their workplace were still charged a fee to cover collective bargaining, contract administration and other services.

    The law prohibits these fees and, as a result, allows the “taking of the plaintiff’s property without just compensation in violation” of the state constitution, Foust wrote in his decision.

    Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a statement that he will appeal the decision.

    That’s some truly contorted and morally obscene legal reasoning. He’s saying that the unions have an inherent right to the wages of anyone who works in their domain.

    Zero chance this survives appeal, thankfully.

    1. “Zero chance this survives appeal”

      Not so fast.

      MARCH 29, 2016
      “WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court handed organized labor a major victory on Tuesday, deadlocking 4 to 4 in a case that had threatened to cripple the ability of public-sector unions to collect fees from workers who chose not to join and did not want to pay for the unions’ collective bargaining activities.”

      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016…..l?referer=

      1. Apparently this Wisconsin case is based on the Wisconsin constitution, not the federal constitution.

        And big business can simply boycott Wisconsin until it adds right-to-work language to the state constitution.

        Of course, progressives might object to large corporations using boycotts to induce states to change their laws

        /sarc

        1. If there were no progressives, there would be no progressive objections.

    2. Dane County judges are owned by the unions. The WI Supreme Court, not so much. Overturned at the state level. At SCOTUS, who knows?

      1. if it is overturned at the state level, that will likely stand when SCOTUS deadlocks.

        Until a new president gets elected.

  13. Son divorces his wife so he can fuck his mother and they want to have freak retard children together.

    “This is not incest, it is GSA,” West said, according to the New Day. “We are like peas in a pod and meant to be together.”

    “I know people will say we’re disgusting, that we should be able to control our feelings,” she said, according to the New Day. “But when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it.”

    1. Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

    2. Their child would share 75% of the mother’s genes, like worker bees do with their queen. Interesting to watch what happens.

    3. “when you’re hit by a love so consuming you are willing to give up everything for it, you have to fight for it”

      He must have a low opinion of the intelligence of the American people if he thinks they’re going to overturn longstanding legal definitions based on sentimental bullshit about luv.

      /sarc

      1. “intelligence of the American people”

        Oops, I meant English people. They’re even smarter than Americans, except about the part where they stay in England. *That’s* kind of dumb.

    4. That’s some sick fucking shit.

    5. Someone posted that the other day and I’ll repeat what I said then….with any luck she is infertile.

      There is one plus side to a woman’s short childbearing period….harder to have your sons children. Gross.

  14. OT: Today is the anniversary of the making of the earliest known surviving voice recording

    One phonautogram, created on April 9, 1860, was revealed to be a 20-second recording of the French folk song “Au clair de la lune”. Due to some confusing 1860 technical terminology, it was initially played at double the original recording speed and believed to be the voice of a woman or child. At the correct speed the voice of a man, almost certainly Scott himself, is heard singing the song very slowly.[1] Also recovered were two 1860 recordings of “Vole, petite abeille” (“Fly, Little Bee”), a lively song from a comic opera.[6] Previously, the earliest known recording of vocal music was an 1888 Edison wax cylinder phonograph recording of a Handel choral concert.

  15. You Don’t Actually Own What You Buy Vol. 2033

    Teaser:

    Consumers are pretty constantly buying hardware they think they own, either to have that hardware made less useful (as we’ve seen with some game consoles), or in this instance stop working entirely thanks to later software updates. There’s any number of things Google could have done to avoid customer ill will, from a slight discount off of Nest or other products, or even, hey, an e-mail reminding users that the smart home hubs they paid $300 for would soon be little more than a lovely paperweight.

    There’s an interesting discussion going on in the comments. *pops popcorn*

  16. This law isn’t about a safety pretext at all.

    Check out the ACLU’s own press release:

    “Indiana House Enrolled Act 1337…prohibits abortions if the sole reason for the abortion is the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or diagnosis of a statutorily-defined “disability” or “potential diagnosis” of a “disability.””

    1. Nice. The last message in the list finally got to the point.

      Yeah, it’s obviously not about safety, but about “discrimination”. That’s the true Thought Crime these days – acting on a personal preference between people.

  17. Does “planned parenthood” offer gift certificates for abortions?

    Do they have a bridal registry?

  18. I know pro choicers hate how disingenuous the “no aborting down syndrome fetuses for safety” is but it could actually work from a pro lifers standpoint. Women who are considering that type of abortion are probably not in very desperate situations because usually they can 1. Afford to pay for the expensive genetic testing to tell if the fetus has defects and 2. The fact that they got the testing means they were prepared to keep it if they got the results they wanted.
    And since they are not in desperate circumstances, it seems unlikely that they would do a back alley thing.

    So it seems like at least one pro choice argument, that “illegal abortion does not result in less abortion” may not apply here. If you can temporarily see it from a pro lifers perspective of wanting fewer abortions, this may work. (I know I’ll start a flame war anyway but I thought it was worth it to add a different POV, sorry)

    1. An entire paragraph of purely specious reasoning. Typical for the anti-choice crowd.

      1. Ooh, cytotoxic shows up right when I post my screed. How did I get so lucky? Are you going to say something about retarded dogs or have you been working on new material? Don’t keep me in suspense

    2. Good news for people who love Down Syndrome patients and object to the reduced numbers of Down Syndrome patients due to prenatal testing and abortion:

      Soon we will be able to genetically engineer human zygotes with Trisomy 21, the genetic defect which causes Down Syndrome. You will be able to implant these zygotes into your own uterus (or, if you are male, into your wife’s or girlfriend’s uterus) and grow as many Down Syndrome patients as you wish to have.

      We will also be able to create human zygotes with other genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, and Prader-Willi syndrome. You will be able to grow children with whatever genetic diseases you want them to have!

      Enjoy.

      1. The solution to chromosomal defects is to kill the humans who have them. Is that really the position you want to advocate?

        1. Whether or not to kill them is up to the person whose body they are occupying.

  19. Typically disgusting for the womb warriors. This is what happens when you classify non-persons as persons. Real people lose real rights.

    1. There’s an easy solution to this. Focus completely on the adorable little baby. Who could kill that but an inhuman, libtard, socialist entitlement sucking, crack whore? It’s not like she could have other children to feed. She obviously doesn’t deserve the right to have other goals in life. And she certainly doesn’t get the right to choose whether she will be burdened with the bills and care of a special-needs child for the next 18 years (before s/he becomes a taxpayer burden). Wouldn’t a real woman welcome bringing any child into the world? That’s not to say that women should be baby-making machines. That’s saying that they’re either baby-machines, sad barren husks, or liberal crack-whores. And is an entitlement-sucking slut really more deserving of rights than a cute little baby?

  20. Want to decrease abortions? Find the “gay gene” and be able to tell if the child will be gay and have those parents who don’t want a gay child start aborting them. See what happens when there’s an attempt to stop those abortions.

  21. I just got paid $4520 working off my PC. CA07. If you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $5k her first month.Q It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. Why Not You also try this..

    Start HERE— http://www.alpha-careers.com

  22. I just got paid $4520 working off my PC. CA08. If you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $5k her first month.Q It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. Why Not You also try this..

    Start HERE— http://www.alpha-careers.com

  23. I support fetal homicide laws, because fetuses which commit homicide should be punished!

  24. Yeah!!! At least I’m success to EARN $4820/WEEK .R I heard about it last 3months and I have made such a great cash. It is very beneficial for me and my family.My relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this….. You also try well? ? ? ?Please avoid spammer.F–21

    START HERE__ http://www.payability70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.