INDIANAPOLIS (CN) --- Abortion rights groups scored a victory in court Wednesday when a federal judge stopped a controversial new Indiana law mere days before it was set to take effect.
The legislation in question is known as HB 1577 and was signed into law in April by Republican Governor Eric Holcomb. Among other provisions, it restricted access to telehealth services for abortion patients and required abortion providers to disclose to patients that medication-induced abortions could be stopped.
U.S. District Judge James Hanlon, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote in his ruling Wednesday that the claim about the reversal procedure was not supported by the evidence, and requiring abortion providers to inform patients about it violated their free speech rights.
Hanlon’s preliminary injunction stops the law from taking effect on Thursday while the legal challenge plays out.
“In sum, because the evidence in the record does not show that the required disclosure is ‘truthful and not misleading,’ it is not a ‘reasonable’ regulation of the practice of medicine," the judge wrote.
The decision was celebrated by the plaintiffs, which includes abortion rights groups All-Options and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance.
“We are thrilled that the judge has blocked implementation of this law until we have a chance to fully challenge it in court,” said Parker Dockray, executive director of All-Options, in a statement. “Providers should not be forced to give patients inaccurate and dangerous misinformation about 'reversing' an abortion. Pregnant people deserve better – they need accurate information about all their options, and support to make the decisions that are right for them.”
Two doctors and several abortion rights groups filed their lawsuit challenging the law in May, claiming it violated the free speech rights of the providers. They also dispute the entire idea that a medication abortion can be halted.
A medication abortion is a procedure in which a pregnant woman taking a combination of two drugs known as mifepristone and misoprostol. The drugs are taken 24 to 48 hours apart and if successful will terminate the pregnancy.
“There is no credible or reliable scientific evidence that 'the effects of mifepristone can be avoided, ceased, or reversed,'" the lawsuit states.
Some physicians claim, however, that such an abortion can be halted by the patient taking several doses of the hormone progesterone after taking the first drug used in the medication abortion.
During a court hearing, Dr. George Delgado presented evidence in favor of the reversal procedure and shared two articles supporting it. The state also submitted testimony from other physicians who are in support of the procedure.
However, Hanlon was not convinced by the evidence, finding that there were flaws in Delgado’s studies, namely that they were small and lacked control of certain variables to determine if the procedure was effective or not.
The judge wrote that the studies lacked evidence of “causation” and said they used a design that contained a “greater possibility of bias” when compared to a controlled trial.
Hanlon also cited a randomized clinical study performed by the University of California, Davis, which was stopped after three participants suffered severe bleeding and had to be taken by ambulance to receive emergency medical treatment. That study did not reach any definitive conclusions about the reversal procedure, and researchers were not able to quantify the risk of hemorrhages such a procedure might have for recipients.
The unproven nature of the state's claim, Hanlon said, is what made the dispute a free speech issue. Because the forced disclosure was not clearly backed by science, he found that it would be unconstitutional to force doctors to inform patients about the reversal procedure.
The other plaintiffs included doctors Alison Case and William Haskell, and Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, and Kentucky.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, applauded Hanlon's "decision to side with science and block this medically inaccurate, insulting, and potentially dangerous law.”
“Today’s decision is a win for providers and patients, who deserve the highest quality care we can offer, including factual, honest counseling. Indiana’s biased and scientifically unsound ‘counseling requirement’ would have forced providers to lie to their patients and parrot the harmful rhetoric of anti-abortion politicians,” she said in a statement.
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.
Additional Reads
-
-
Forever-chemical butter April 25, 2024