In their rush to rule in favor of abortion, a court in Indiana may have accidentally made homicide legal, at least in theory.
Whoops.
In its zeal to support abortion, an Indiana court accidentally legalized homicide😳
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
I realize what a bold claim that is, but I have the evidence. Buckle up. 1/https://t.co/ka8cSikIO8
Yeah, buckle up.
Here's a direct link to the opinion so you can follow along. You can skip the procedural questions; the real meat of the opinion begins at paragraph 120. 2/ https://t.co/zkUZGqh9UO
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
What happens at that paragraph? Well first, some background.
This is a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) case. RFRA governs when people can obtain religious exceptions to generally applicable laws. The Hobby Lobby case is a famous example. 3/
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
We all remember Hobby Lobby.
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. 4/
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
The Left always plays the long game.
Conservatives would do well to remember this.
But RFRA will NOT apply if the state has a "compelling interest" in enforcing the law. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses can't use RFRA to deny blood transfusions to their dying children. More analysis on that in the link. https://t.co/k28y7GQGsy 5/
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
The state of Indiana argued that it has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children. Dobbs clearly makes that argument available. But the Court of Appeal of Indiana found that the state did NOT have a compelling interest -- and its reasoning is scary. 6/
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
Yes, the reasoning is scary, but also an opportunity and a lesson.
The Court said that since Indiana's abortion law contains secular exceptions -- for rape, the life of the mother, and fatal fetal anomaly -- the interest in human life must not be compelling...
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
...forgetting that the homicide law ALSO contains exceptions! 7/
Yikes.
Because Indiana has legislated at least two exceptions to its homicide law, by the logic of this opinion, Indiana does not have a "compelling interest" in enforcing that law against religiously motivated murderers. Let the legal human sacrifices and honor killings begin! 9/
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
As someone pointed out, the question is not if the religion allows it, but requires it, and even then a First Amendment case could be made.
Another problem is the state of Indiana apparently claimed an interest in 'potential life' and not life.
This is where the pro-life movement and the political interests collide: many people, including Donald Trump, support abortion in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. But what makes those unborn babies less worthy of protection than babies conceived in other circumstances? Why does the way one was conceived determine if someone is worthy of the protection of the state or not?
And that's where Indiana hit a stumbling block. It's also something the pro-life movement will have to reconcile itself with, and sooner rather than later.
But we digress.
Thankfully, this opinion is not the final word. The case is still working its way through the courts. The Supreme Court of Indiana can correct this grievous error; in the meantime, the legislature can act to repeal or reform RFRA. But they'd better act fast. 10/10
— Secular Pro-Life (@secularprolife) April 9, 2024
Thankfully.
Honestly, this was something brought up during the Special Session. When you allow for exceptions for emotional reasons, you are opening the door for a whole lot of valid argument about why not other non-medical reasons. I don't agree with them that religion overrides a right to…
— Robin Atkins (@TruthAgape) April 9, 2024
It's a proverbial can of worms.
Hey, @alexthechick, please tell me Secular Pro-Life is reading too much into this law.
— Lord Woodstone (Toss all MAPS out the airlock) (@EricMertz_KC) April 9, 2024
Please. https://t.co/EY7LQ7N580
We would hope that's the case.
Yes. Or, more to the point, is taking the position to its logical conclusion to make the point that the Indiana appellate court was so determined to protect abortion that it didn't pay attention to what it was doing. +
— alexandriabrown (@alexthechick) April 9, 2024
There you go.
It'll get fixed, either in another court or the legislature, but amazing how the court overlooked something like this to protect abortion.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member