The Indiana Supreme Court is now weighing a lawsuit that claims the state’s pro-life law violates the religious freedom of abortion advocates, a legal argument so audacious it redefines the very meaning of religious exercise.
The case centers on Indiana’s law banning most abortions. Plaintiffs argue the ban infringes on their right to freely exercise religion, citing the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The argument isn’t new. It first surfaced in 1972 when creative law professors claimed women exercise religion when obtaining abortions permitted by their personal beliefs. The theory failed then. Abortion advocates are hoping it succeeds now.
Here’s the legal reality they’re up against. The Supreme Court addressed this exact claim in 1980 when it upheld the Hyde Amendment, which bans taxpayer funding of most abortions. The Court was clear: to qualify as an “exercise of religion,” an action must be compelled by religious belief, not merely consistent with it.
The plaintiffs in Indiana admit their hypothetical abortions would simply be “consistent” with their beliefs. That’s precisely what the Supreme Court said doesn’t count.
Consider the implications if courts accepted this reasoning. Any decision or action not explicitly prohibited by one’s moral or religious beliefs could be used to challenge virtually any law. Speed limits. Tax codes. Building permits. The legal system would collapse under the weight of such claims.
During oral arguments on September 10, the Indiana Supreme Court explored whether the plaintiffs even have legal standing to bring the case. Courts require plaintiffs to demonstrate actual or imminent injury caused by the defendant. A vague hypothetical about abortions that might someday be sought doesn’t meet that standard.
The case represents the latest front in the abortion industry’s war against pro-life protections following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which returned abortion policy to the states. Unable to win at the ballot box in conservative states, abortion advocates have turned to increasingly creative legal theories.
Indiana’s law reflects the will of Hoosier voters who elected legislators committed to protecting unborn children. The lawsuit asks courts to override that democratic process based on the religious claims of plaintiffs who can’t demonstrate any concrete injury.
The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision will signal whether religious freedom protections can be twisted into tools for the abortion lobby or whether courts will hold the line on what religious exercise actually means.
