INDIANAPOLIS (CN) — A federal judge sided with Planned Parenthood Wednesday, ruling that an Indiana law restricting information physicians could provide to underage patients about abortions runs afoul of the First Amendment.
The lawsuit challenged a portion of a 2017 law known as the “aid-or-assist statute,” which prohibits physicians and abortion providers from sharing information with minor patients on out-of-state abortion alternatives, unless they have parental consent or court approval.
The law was signed before the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and before Indiana enacted a near-total ban on abortion, but it was never enforced due to a 2017 court injunction.
Before the abortion ban, Indiana minors could obtain first-trimester abortions as long as they had parental consent or approval from the court.
However, in the wake of Indiana’s ban, most abortions in the state are now illegal and physicians were also restricted in providing young patients with options.
Despite the aid-or-assist statute being blocked since 2017, plaintiffs Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky Inc., and the state of Indiana, moved for a final ruling.
U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Barker sided unequivocally with Planned Parenthood in her 21-page ruling, finding that the law would violate the First Amendment if enforced against the health care provider.
“Thus, contrary to the State's contention, the aid-or-assist statute does not simply restrict PPGNHAIK's speech only as it relates to immature, dependent minors, but would also prevent PPGNHAIK and its physicians from speaking or otherwise communicating about out-of-state abortion care, even to minors who have parental consent for their abortion or who would be deemed mature enough to make the abortion decision for themselves but for whatever reason are not seeking to comply with Indiana's parental consent and/or judicial bypass procedures,” Barker wrote.
The state contended that the statute only regulates physicians’ actions, not their speech, and even if it did, it was lawful because it was in the furtherance of investigating criminal activity.
However, Barker pointed out that while most abortions are illegal in Indiana, except in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal anomalies, or when the mother’s health is endangered, patients are not prohibited from seeking out-of-state abortions.
“The aid-or-assist statute is therefore not narrowly tailored to further the state's interest in investigating criminal conduct because the statute covers any transfer of information regarding available abortion care options provided without parental consent, which includes not only in-state abortion options for unemancipated minors who have not complied with Indiana's parental consent requirements that would be illegal under Indiana law but also legal out-of-state services,” Barker wrote.
Barker also rejected the state’s argument that the law was safeguarding the parent-child relationship and the mental and physical health of minors.
“The State has not articulated any specific psychological or physical harm to minors that is caused by the mere dissemination of truthful information concerning lawful reproductive healthcare options and the medical providers who provide such services, particularly given that such information is readily and widely available to any member of the public via a simple internet search,” Barker wrote.
The Indiana Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment and has yet to indicate whether it will appeal the ruling.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
