Proposed Indiana abortion law creates 'unholy union of pre-, post-Dobbs provisions'
This week, the Indiana House will meet to consider Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the abortion bill that passed the Senate on Saturday by one vote. SB1 would make Indiana the first state to ban abortion in a special session post Dobbs. Hoosiers are still reeling from the national outcry after a 10-year-old rape victim was forced to travel to Indiana from Ohio to obtain a legal abortion, when Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita disingenuously rushed to impugn and investigate the physician who performed the legal procedure. Rokita’s misrepresentations have thus far earned him scorn, an ethics complaint to the state licensing board filed by Indiana University Maurer School of Law’s former dean, and a tort claim from the physician’s attorney to the state Office of the Attorney General.
Yet Indiana legislators continue to double down on dismantling reproductive rights and women’s health care. There’s no doubt: SB1 is intended to be a total ban on abortions in Indiana. By supporting this bill, the Republican supermajority is blatantly disregarding not only their constituents’ desires, but also the rule of law.
SB1 was originally described as a kinder, gentler abortion bill, one with exceptions for rape, incest and the pregnant woman’s life and “health,” that would keep birth control legal. These “exceptions” are clumsily drafted and likely to be unworkable in practice. But the Senate deemed even these constraints too generous and tacked on harsh amendments. The result is an unholy union of pre- and post-Dobbs provisions that attempts to obscure the bill’s inherent cruelty and forces pregnant people — and ultimately doctors and courts — through an obstacle course of contradictory and expansive terms that can and will trap the unwary.
For example, proposed revisions to the Indiana Code’s rape and incest provisions (IC 16-24-3-1(a)(6)) would force children and crime victims seeking abortions to sign an affidavit upon penalty of perjury, intensifying their trauma and deterring many from seeking care. This allows the attorney general or other officials to access the affidavit to prosecute or harass doctors, patients and others — further shaming and stigmatizing rape and incest victims and places more bureaucratic obstacles to deter them from terminating their pregnancies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/op-ed-proposed-indiana-abortion-235105768.html