Chickens Come Home To Roost: Indiana Court Decision Succumbs To Those Who Claim "Religious Liberty" To Murder Babies

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner.

We’ve all heard the saying, “the chickens have come home to roost”. Most know the meaning of the phrase and liken it to the phrase “watch out, it may bite you in the ‘backside’”. This is no more apparent than what has happened in the State of Indiana.

From WND.com:

An Indiana appeals court has granted a victory to a group of plaintiffs who claim the state’s law protecting preborn children from abortion violates their religious freedom.

• Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process – Choose “Select & Save” OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
• Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify

In 2022, the Indiana General Assembly passed a law protecting most preborn children from abortion, with exceptions included for the life or health of the mother, rape or incest, and when the child is expected to die during pregnancy or at birth. A group of five women, along with Hoosier Jews for Choice, then sued in September of 2022, claiming the law violates their religious rights under the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). A trial court granted a preliminary injunction against the law for the plaintiffs until their claim could be resolved, and also agreed the suit could move forward as a class action.

The state of Indiana appealed the ruling, and the appeals court then agreed with the trial court, upholding the injunction but ruling it needed to be made narrower. The court ruled that because the state allows exceptions in the pro-life law, its argued “compelling interest” in protecting preborn lives is not actually compelling at all.

This is what happens when a slippery slope is traversed. The Indiana “law” that supposedly was passed to protect innocent babies in the womb from murder carved out exceptions that have now been turned around to bite the State in their “compelling interest”. Moreover, the individuals bringing the class action lawsuit used another “law” – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – to do it, somehow claiming that the murder of babies in the womb “violates their religious rights”. Exactly what religion do these individuals and Hoosier Jews for Choice practice where the murder of babies is condoned?

Before answering that question, what did the ruling state?

“We conclude that Hoosier Jews for Choice has associational standing, that Plaintiffs’ claims are ripe, and that the class action certification was not an abuse of discretion,” the ruling said. “Although we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief, the preliminary injunction is overly broad because it enjoins enforcement of the Abortion Law in ways that do not violate RFRA. We therefore affirm but remand for entry of a narrower injunction.”

The court determined the plaintiffs have standing, their claims are ripe, and the class action was not an abuse. So, the injunctive relief was granted, but the court remanded the case for a narrower injunction.

Kelsey Hazzard, founder and president of Secular Pro-Life, explained that the ruling has now made human sacrifice legal in Indiana. She explained, “If a state permits a single legal abortion, by this logic, it must permit abortions for anyone who claims a religious motivation.”

She continued, “And here’s the kicker: they forgot that Indiana has similar exceptions to homicide. […]

“Because Indiana has legislated at least two exceptions to its homicide law, Indiana does not have a compelling interest in enforcing that law against religiously motivated murderers. Let the legal human sacrifices and honor killings begin!”

The website for Secular Pro-Life claims that this ruling makes human sacrifices “legal” in the State of Indiana. It provides some background and explanation.

A little background: We are talking about a RFRA challenge to Indiana’s abortion law. RFRA (short for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) is a law adopted by the federal government and numerous states, including Indiana. It governs when people can obtain religious exceptions to generally applicable laws. For example, a prison may have a generally applicable policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven, but a Muslim inmate with a sincere religious belief that he must grow his beard can obtain an exception.

In the Dobbs era, pro-abortion activists got creative and brought RFRA lawsuits against pro-life laws in several states. They argued that since some religious groups support abortion, adherents of those religions should be able to disregard pro-life legislation. [Unfortunately, no religious groups were named that claimed to support the murder of babies in the womb. One could guess some could be the pseudo-religions of human secularism, transhumanism, and globalism.]

There are limits, however, and one of them is that RFRA won’t apply if the state has a “compelling interest” in the law. A prisoner’s beard length is really not that important in the grand scheme of things. But when a human life is on the line, the state’s compelling interest will prevail. Jehovah’s Witnesses have filed unsuccessful lawsuits to avoid giving medically necessary blood transfusions to their children. Since the state has a compelling interest in saving a child’s life, those challenges were doomed. Abortion laws are also motivated by compelling interest in children’s lives, which Dobbs allows. So case closed, right? I certainly thought so.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana begs to differ. It issued an opinion enjoining Indiana’s abortion law (that is, putting it on hold) while the pro-abortion RFRA case proceeds. A court of appeal will only do that if it believes the plaintiffs are likely to win. And the reasoning it used should horrify every American, whether pro-life or pro-choice.

The point of Ms. Hazzard at Secular Pro-Life centers around paragraph 120 of the ruling and determines that paragraph 141 is the most worrisome. Yet, other passages exist in the opinion that should concern everyone when State legislatures write “laws” supposedly to “protect the people”. The court opinion should be read beginning at page 53 with paragraph 120. The worrisome portion of the opinion is below.

The State has not shown that its claimed compelling interest in protecting the potential for life is satisfied by denying Plaintiffs’ religious-based exception that prioritizes a mother’s health over potential life, given that other exceptions are allowed based on the same prioritization—that is, the exceptions applicable when the pregnancy poses a “serious health risk” or termination would “save the pregnant woman’s life.” [. . .]

This weakness in the State’s argument is even more apparent when the Abortion Law’s other exceptions are considered. First, the Abortion Law does not apply to in vitro fertilization. See Ind. Code § 16-34-1-0.5. That suggests the Abortion Law does not criminalize zygote destruction, although the State is claiming a compelling interest that begins the moment an egg is fertilized.

The Abortion Law also allows abortions when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest or when the fetus has been diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly so long as other statutory conditions are met. Ind. Code §§ 16-34-21(a)(1)(A)(ii), (2)(A), (3)(A). The State does not explain why a victim of rape or incest is entitled to an abortion, but women whose sincere religious beliefs direct an abortion are not. The State also does not explain how allowing an abortion of a “fetus diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly”—as is conditionally permitted by the Abortion Law—advances the State’s alleged compelling interest in protecting potential life.

Here are some more troubling points.

It was conceded the State had a legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life (unborn babies). But, it was not pinpointed exactly when that interest begins or the full extent of the State’s interest in “zygotes, embryos and fetuses”.

Previous court cases ruled the Indiana State Constitution protects a woman’s “right” to kill her baby when it is necessary to protect her life or protect her from serious health risk. This established a precedent where a woman’s interest in “abortion” outweighed the interest of the State in protecting a potential life. The courts did not specify when the State interests outweigh that of the woman. Considering that it is extremely rare for murdering a baby in the womb to be necessary to protect the mother from a serious health risk, this condition seems to keep weaving its way into “pro-life” legislation.

The General Assembly has not fully defined those interests and indicates the State lacks a compelling interest in potential life from when an egg is fertilized. Indiana General Assembly declined to explicitly define human beings as including zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. When a man and woman conceive a child, it can be described no other way as a human being, which would include “zygotes, embryos, and fetuses” – all terms that can be applied to unborn human beings. It is interesting the State of Indiana did not clarify that but more ridiculous is the judge’s expectation that the State should have included those terms in the definition.

Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-160 defines “human being” as “an individual who has been born and is alive”; Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 differentiates between the killing of a fetus and the killing of a “human being”; Ind. Code § 34-23-2-1(b) defines “child” for purposes of an action for wrongful death or injury to include “a fetus that has attained viability”. So, according to the State of Indiana, unborn babies are not human beings until they are born and are not considered to be a child until the baby has attained viability. One has to ask how the State of Indiana defines “viability”.

There has been no designated exact point in pregnancy when the State’s interest in a zygote, embryo, or fetus becomes compelling. In Virto Fertilization (IVF) is exempted from the “Abortion Law” scope even though IVF is a potential for life but might be destroyed in the process or procedures. This exemption, per the ruling, suggests the State’s compelling interest is absent at fertilization.

And, the court opined the “Abortion Law” carved out exceptions that “expressly permits abortions at all stages of gestation provided certain express requirements are met” specifically assuming all other statutory requirements are met. So, the State of Indiana truly failed to protect unborn babies by conditionally allowing murder during all stages of pregnancy.

Moreover, it was determined, “The Abortion Law allows a conditional right to abortions ‘to prevent any serious health risk to the pregnant woman or to save the pregnant woman’s life.’ Ind. Code §§ 16-34-2-1(a)(1)(A)(i), (3)(A). This amounts to an exception to the Abortion Law’s prohibitions based on a prioritization of the pregnant woman’s health over the survival of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. But that is the same sort of prioritization reflected in the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, albeit on a different scale.”

Paragraphs 136 and 137 put the chickens on the roosting bar.

Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs direct them to terminate their pregnancy “if their health or wellbeing—physical, mental, or emotional—were endangered by a pregnancy, pregnancy-related condition, or fetal abnormality.” Appellees’ Prelim. Inj. Br., p. 18. In other words, in accordance with Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, the pregnant woman’s health must have precedence, with an abortion available even if, contrary to the Abortion Law: (1) the pregnancy is not lifethreatening; (2) the pregnancy does not present a serious health risk as that term is used in the Abortion Law; or (3) the fetal abnormality is not lethal within the meaning of the Abortion Law. [This “religion” has to be the “Church of Abortion on Demand” or the “Unreformed Association of Unborn Baby Murderers.]

Thus, the broader religious exemption that Plaintiffs effectively seek has the same foundation as the narrower exceptions already existing in the Abortion Law: all are based on the interests of the mother outweighing the interests of the zygote, embryo, or fetus. The religious exemption that Plaintiffs seek, based on their sincere religious beliefs, merely expands the circumstances in which the pregnant woman’s health dictates an abortion.

These points led up to the worrisome paragraph 141 and beyond.

What do these “plaintiffs believe” that would result in such a court opinion?

According to court documents, one of the anonymous Jewish plaintiffs “believes life begins when a child takes their first breath after birth and that the life of a pregnant woman—including her physical and mental health and wellbeing—“must take precedence over the potential for life embodied in a fetus.” Two other plaintiffs are listed as a Jewish same-sex couple without children who had planned to attempt to conceive using assisted reproductive technology, but will not do so unless abortion is available to them.

Another plaintiff reportedly “does not believe in a single, theistic god” but instead “believes in a “supernatural force or power in the universe that connects all humans” and that “we are endowed with bodily autonomy that should not be infringed upon” and “does not believe that life begins at conception.” [One should ask this plaintiff who endowed “we” with bodily autonomy.]

This is what happens when government and individuals who think they know better than God are allowed to “define” and invent rights, enact legislation that “carves out” exceptions to appease voters instead of holding to God’s laws, and supposed “pro-life” groups accept any legislation other than abolition of the murder of babies in the womb. Moreover, the RFRA was used to bring about this case. What other atrocities can be “legalized” utilizing the RFRA by citing a “religious belief”?

When will Americans learn to “be careful what you ask for” when it comes to government legislation regarding protecting the sanctity of life? The government possesses no authority to determine who is more important when it comes to innocent life or who deserves the “right to live.” Americans should educate themselves before petitioning the government to act as the government will invariably muck it up. As we can see, it will eventually come back to “bite us in the backside” while the chickens are coming home to roost.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media