Federal Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted an injunction against Indiana’s recently enacted pro-life law that would have prohibited abortions on the sole basis of a diagnosis of Down syndrome – or other disabilities.
Indiana’s pro-life law was signed by Governor Mike Pence on March 24th, and the law was set to go into effect July 1st, but Planned Parenthood’s injunction against the law was granted.
According to Planned Parenthood, it’s unconstitutional to prohibit abortions, even when they’re performed solely because of the baby’s race, color, sex, national origin, or disability, as Indiana’s pro-life law prohibits. When it comes to killing the most defenseless and innocent among us, Planned Parenthood’s position is that there should be no discrimination.
The ACLU – which sued the state on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky (PPINK) – saw things a little differently, however. CNS News had previously reported:
“The ACLU stands firmly against discrimination in all forms, but that isn’t what this law is about,” Jane Henegar, ACLU of Indiana executive director, said in a statement Thursday.
In particular, PPINK stated that Indiana’s pro-life law – House Bill 1337, the “Dignity for the Unborn Act” – violated the 14th Amendment by “creat[ing] an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion.”
Additionally, PPINK “strongly object[ed] to having to participate in informing women that Indiana law prohibits an abortion solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having a disability as they believe that they are being forced to inform patients of something that is clearly unconstitutional.”
Federal Judge Tanya Walton Pratt backed them up. CNS News reported:
Pratt argued that “irreparable harm” would have occurred had the law taken effect as scheduled on Friday as the precedent established by Roe v. Wade “requires reaffirmance of Roe’s essential holding recognizing a woman’s right to choose an abortion before fetal viability.”
“Difficult moral and complicated health decisions are made by women whose pregnancies are affected by a prenatal fetal anomaly,” Pratt wrote. “Given the relatively short time frame in which women may elect to terminate a pregnancy, even a short disruption of a woman’s ability to do so could have significant consequences.”
“Absent an injunction, women would be informed that there could be legal consequences if they choose to terminate a pregnancy for these particular reasons, which could impair a woman’s ability to make her decision with ‘intimate views’ and ‘with infinite variations,’” Pratt argued. “These harms far outweigh the generalized harms faced by the State in the delay of the implementation of its democratically enacted law.”
“Irreparable harm” to whom? It seems that if the law were allowed to take effect, irreparable harm to at least some unborn babies would be averted. And they act like that’s a bad thing.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com