Staff Reports
Indiana is the headline again — and not for anything that will make conservatives proud. A Marion County judge turned a preliminary win into a permanent classwide injunction that carves a religious‑freedom exception out of the state’s near‑total abortion ban. The Indiana Supreme Court has fast‑tracked the appeal, and the legal battle that follows could reshape how state RFRAs are used across the country.
The ruling and the fast‑track to the state high court
Judge Christina Klineman ruled that enforcing the Indiana abortion law against people who say their religion requires abortion imposes a “substantial burden” on their religious exercise. That turned a temporary pause into a permanent block for a certified class of plaintiffs. The State, through Attorney General Todd Rokita, asked for immediate transfer, and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed — briefing ends in July and oral argument is set for September.
What’s really at stake: RFRA as a shortcut to abortion
Here’s the big problem. RFRA‑style laws require the government to meet strict scrutiny before they can burden religious exercise. That is supposed to protect minorities with sincere, unusual practices — not to be a legal get‑out‑of‑jail‑free card that allows anyone to claim a religious reason to break a general criminal law. If the Indiana Supreme Court blesses this use of RFRA, it hands courts a template to carve exceptions out of abortion laws in many states that have their own RFRA statutes.
Who’s lining up on the briefs
Amicus briefs are pouring in from both sides. The ACLU of Indiana champions the plaintiffs and says religious freedom protects many faiths and beliefs. On the other side, groups like the Thomas More Society and the Indiana Catholic Conference — and Senator Jim Banks — argue this would “smuggle in an unrestricted right to abortion” and that “there is no religious right to take a human life.” The fight isn’t just local. If Indiana’s high court accepts the ACLU’s theory, expect copycat litigation in other RFRA states.
Why conservatives should pay attention — and act
This case is not a theoretical law school problem. The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether RFRA becomes a loophole big enough to swallow state abortion laws. The deadlines are real. The briefs, the argument, and the ruling will shape whether states can enforce laws protecting unborn life or whether a new doctrine lets courts excuse criminal prohibitions whenever someone invokes religion. Conservatives who believe in both religious liberty and the protection of life should watch closely, speak plainly, and not let clever legal gymnastics replace sober moral and legal reasoning.
