AG Hill Asks Court To Review Case Involving Indiana Abortion Law

Attorney General Curtis Hill is once again asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case involving an Indiana abortion law as it pertains to the constitution. In the brief filed by Hill Tuesday, issues with two provisions in House Bill 1337 were cited. Passed in 2016, the legislation increased state regulation surrounding abortion and miscarriages.

One of the provisions cited in Hill's brief requires health facilities to treat the disposal of fetal remains with the same dignity granted to other human remains by cremating or burying them. The other provision Hill cited prohibits abortion performed for the sole reason of disability, race or sex of the unborn child.

Hill said that while the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held that both provisions violate the U.S. Constitution, the Seventh Circuit panel contradicted an earlier decision regarding the fetal-remains provision made in the Eighth Circuit, which upholds a nearly identical law in Minnesota as constitutional.

Related:

• Planned Parenthood Sues Indiana Over New Abortion Law
• Anti-Abortion Group Wants To Open Next To Indiana Abortion Clinic

“The result is that Minnesota can require burial or cremation of fetal remains while Indiana cannot,” Attorney General Hill wrote. Only the U.S. Supreme Court, Hill added, “can decide which of these positions is correct,” regarding the position of the Seventh Circuit and the position of the Eighth Circuit on this matter.

Hill said the anti-discrimination provision raises "issues of national importance" that the U.S. Supreme Court should address.

“Other states are adopting laws similar to ours,” Hill said in the brief. “Internationally, there is attention focused on whether it’s ethical to abort babies because, for example, they have Down Syndrome, which is a very prevalent reason given for abortions. So we’re hoping that the significance of the issue will justify Supreme Court review.”

In the court filing linked below, the brief asks the court to finally address whether the abortion right protected by preceding court cases is so broad that it guards even those discriminatory abortions noted above.

>> See: Reply Brief of Petitioners.pdf

Image via Patch file photo