Indiana did not ban abortion

Indiana has been touted as having “banned nearly all abortions.” Indiana Right to Life has said the bill result in “95%” of abortions ending…“probably”…

It’s amazing how much the message changed in the last 36 hours. For weeks most have declared the bill bad and pleaded with legislators to fix gaping holes. Now that it has passed and been signed into law it is being held up as a victory.

You will hear “abortion clinics are a thing of the past.” Note, the clinics are a thing of the past - not that abortion providing services are a thing of the past.

Below is my analysis of the language of the bill. I have followed it closely.

  1. “Abortion clinics” are indeed done in Indiana. They will be replaced by hospitals and “ambulatory outpatient surgical centers.” The only difference between an abortion clinic and one of these new centers is it must have “majority ownership by a hospital.” (top of page 3) In the next few weeks, is it not probable that a large hospital will simply buy a clinic and term it a center?

  2. Abortions will be legal if the woman has a:

““Serious health risk”…means that in reasonable medical judgment, a condition exists that has complicated the mother’s medical condition and necessitates an abortion to prevent death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

(pg 6)

  1. They will be legal up to 40 weeks because of this on pg 12-15

“Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when performed under the following circumstances:…at the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age and any time after, for reasons based upon the
professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s physician if:
(A) based on reasonable medical judgment, performing the abortion is necessary to prevent any serious health risk to the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman’s life”

  1. Dismemberment abortion is legal, too. In case you keep thinking they are trying to say “life of mother” with “health risk,” they are not:

A person may not knowingly or intentionally perform a dismemberment abortion unless reasonable medical judgment dictates that performing the dismemberment abortion is necessary:
(1) to prevent any serious health risk to the mother; or
(2) to save the mother’s life.

  1. Partial birth is allowed but is tighter in language:

A person may not knowingly or intentionally perform a partial birth abortion unless a physician reasonably believes that:
(1) performing the partial birth abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life; and
(2) no other medical procedure is sufficient to save the mother’s life.

  1. They have to provide a second doctor to take care of a failed murder of child. Unless, of course, it would impede on the mother to have a second doctor present:

(b) An abortion may be performed after the earlier of the time a fetus is viable or the time the postfertilization age of the fetus is at least twenty (20) weeks only if there is in attendance a physician, other than the physician performing the abortion, who shall take control of and provide immediate care for a child born alive as a result of the abortion. During the performance of the abortion, the physician performing the
abortion, and after the abortion, the physician required by this subsection to be in attendance, shall take all reasonable steps in keeping with good medical practice, consistent with the procedure used, to preserve the life and health of the viable unborn child. However, this subsection does not apply if compliance would result in an increased risk to the life or health of the mother.

  1. They must tell a woman that life begins at conception before they allow her to murder it. Among the many things listed as necessary for the woman to know on page 16: “That human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”

  2. They have relieved phsyicans from the crime of feticide, even if they break the law they just wrote:

"this section does not apply to… “a physician licensed under IC 25-22.5 who, upon the request of a pregnant woman, performs a medical procedure to terminate her pregnancy, even if the procedure is not authorized under IC 16-34-2-1.”

  1. Detailed instructions for a doctor and a minor to subvert her parents and the courts to perform an abortion without having to report it on pages including this section allowing a doctor to advocate for her:

A physician who feels that compliance with the parental consent requirement in subsection (a) (b) would have an adverse effect on the welfare of the pregnant minor or on her pregnancy may petition the juvenile court within twenty-four (24) hours of the abortion request for a waiver of the parental consent requirement under subsection (a) (b) and the parental notification requirement under subsection (d). (e)

  1. Further allowance that they can avoid court altogether if it is an “emergency”

(k) This section does not apply where there is an emergency need for a medical procedure to be performed to avert the pregnant minor’s death or a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant minor, and the attending physician certifies this in writing.

  1. Though they will say they require a 24 hour waiting period, it can be waived on the same basis as everything else.:

The twenty-four (24) hour period described in subsection (f) may be waived if a physician, in the physician’s best medical judgment, determines that an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent substantial and irreversible injury to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

There are other problems but to sum up:
A physician may determine a risk to the health of a mother (not the life) and simply perform an abortion on the spot after writing down that he thinks it is prudent. He does not have to provide anything more than a concurring opinion of another physician. This can be done all the way up to partial birth abortion and the physician is completely immune from criminal charges.

We have not banned abortion. To say that we have is to lie.

Edited to add:
In all this, it is easy to point fingers at specific politicians. But, as it is, I do not know whether I would have voted for the bill or not.

There were a few attempts to amend it to something better - they all failed. There were a few attempts to amend it to something that actually banned abortion - they all failed.

What is a man to do when he is faced with a bill this bad but with nothing else on the other side to replace it?

I do not fault the men who eventually voted for it. I do not fault the men who abstained. I do not fault the men who refused to vote for it. And God help us as we go forward.

7 Likes

In other words, now Indiana is better than 90% of the world and fully conforms to the recommendations of Francis Schaeffer’s friend and Tenth Presbyterian elder, C. Everett Koop, co-author of Whatever Happened to the Human Race. The irony of it all.

2 Likes

Pastor Helt this is really helpful and well thought out response. Can you post this on your church blog so I can share with my church, friends and family?

3 Likes

And why your post hit so hard today. It is the exact compromise he thought good all those years ago. And no one is saved and no one is happy.

3 Likes

I’ll try to get it up this afternoon. Have a few things to get done in the meantime.

3 Likes

I have a lot of mixed thoughts about this bill and the process it took to get it. There were moments of light as many Christians boldly testified in the sessions and some legislators stood up for Christ. Rep John Jacob was a prophet and I was so proud of him and sorrowful for how many were unmoved. It was so sad to see how many claim Christ and yet try to defend the slaughter of children. The bill itself is terrible. Yet if it had been defeated by the full on proabort side that would have been worse.

May God have mercy on us.

4 Likes

As a contrast to the work in Indiana, here’s the bill that has come out of the SC House Judiciary Subcommittee. It will be debated in the full Judiciary Committee sometime soon, I believe.

It seems the language about the life of the mother is better. I particularly like the language about giving full attention to the child’s life when a mother’s life is in danger. If a child dies as a result of necessary treatment of the mother, it is not considered an abortion but an accidental death.

The concessions being made in the bill for the sake of more conservative support have to do with contraception, criminalization of the woman, and assisted reproductive technology. The author is not pleased with this but sees it as necessary for the bill to move on.

4 Likes

That may be the best law in any state should it pass. I will pray for it.

The opening set of premises is excellent.

1 Like

This from IU’s illustrious council. Caitlin Bernard is the doctor who shed the blood of the child of a 10 year old from Ohio last month.

Dear Indiana University Faculty, Staff and Students,

As elected leaders of our respective Indiana University campuses and the university as whole, we are professionally and ethically obligated to concern ourselves with a broad range of issues. Among these are the health and wellbeing of our students, colleagues, and other members the communities we serve, as well as the local, national, and international standing of Indiana University as a reputable institution of higher learning known for its steadfast commitment to actively defending the principles of rationality, personal and intellectual freedom, and deference to demonstrable fact.

Currently, we believe the health and wellbeing of members of the Indiana University community are threatened by extraordinarily intrusive proposed legislation pending in Indianapolis (SB 1) that would substitute the State of Indiana’s judgement about when, and under what circumstances, Hoosiers should carry pregnancies, whether planned or unplanned, to term for the judgement of individual Hoosiers themselves. We are especially concerned about the implications this pending legislation has for our students, many of whom have told us they believe their lives would be altered for the worse were they to be deprived by the State of the opportunity to make thoughtful personal decisions about whether to assume the responsibilities of becoming parents while they are still pursuing their own education.

Nor are these concerns confined to students. Indeed, over the past several weeks, we have received a flood of communications from our faculty and staff colleagues as well expressing genuine fear about what the pending legislation will mean for them, their families, and the thousands of highly talented students, faculty, and staff everyone at Indiana University works tirelessly to try to attract to the state each year.

We are also appalled by the unprofessional, irresponsible, and quite frankly hysterical ad hominem attacks directed at our colleague, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, solely for the purpose, it seems to us, of currying favor with those who think it is acceptable for individuals who occupy positions of public trust to use the powers of the offices they hold to threaten and intimidate.

American society has witnessed similar episodes of nakedly political opportunism before, most notably during the McCarthy era, and they have always come to be viewed in retrospect as being among the darkest and most shameful periods in our national history. During the McCarthy era, too many Americans sat idly by and allowed the illusory safety and expedience of silence to compromise their willingness to say and do what was right. We will not make the same mistake—both because the constituents we represent have demanded that we give public voice to their concerns and their outrage over Attorney General Rokita’s scurrilous attacks on our colleague, Dr. Bernard, and because our sense of conscience will not allow it.

With these obligations in mind, we call upon the members of the Indiana General Assembly to reconsider carefully the potentially damaging consequences of the extreme proposed legislation they are currently considering. We also call on Attorney General Rokita to cease his abusive and utterly irresponsible attacks on Dr. Caitlin Bernard.

Signed,

Cathrine E. Reck

President, Bloomington Faculty Council

Co-Chair, University Faculty Council

Philipp Goff

President, Indianapolis Faculty Council

Co-Chair, University Faculty Council

Mark Baer

President, IU Northwest Faculty Organization

Colin R. Johnson

President-elect, Bloomington Faculty Council

Gin Morgan

President, IU Kokomo Faculty Senate

Carolyn A. Schult

President, IU South Bend Academic Senate

Marietta Simpson

Past President, Bloomington Faculty Council

1 Like

The modern Higher Ed establishment, perhaps more than any other institution in this country, is built upon a mountain of murdered babies.

2 Likes

Not perfect, but still very good. This will result in thousands of abortions not being allowed in Indiana, and Planned Parenthood won’t be killing at their South College facility any more. The biggest hole is allowing fertility clinics to “discard” (murder) babies created for in-vitro fertilization. Because we can’t have rich white people be inhibited in their vanity.

2 Likes

I very much fear that IU Health will simply buy the clinic and rename it.

3 Likes

Is there much of a risk that Indiana’s new law (and that for SC) will move the abortions out-of-state instead?

Of course. Both that and interstate abortifacent medication delivered via the Internet which states can’t regulate or stop.

2 Likes