A radical Marion Superior Court judge ruled that the “right” to kill an unborn child is now a protected religious exercise, permanently blocking enforcement of the state’s pro-life protections against a class of plaintiffs who claim their faith requires them to terminate pregnancies.
On Wednesday, Marion Superior Court Judge Christina Klineman, a Democrat, granted summary judgment in favor of abortion activists andissued a permanent injunctionagainst Indiana’s abortion law, ruling that the statute conflicts with the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The decision blocks enforcement of Indiana’s abortion ban for a certified class of plaintiffs and members of the activist group “Hoosier Jews for Choice,” who argued that abortion can be a religious practice.
In the order,the court accepted arguments that abortion may qualify as a form of religious exercise protected by Indiana’s RFRA if individuals claim their beliefs require terminating a pregnancy.
The ruling states that the plaintiffs believe their religion can require abortion under certain circumstances, including situations involving mental, emotional, or physical wellbeing.
“The organization and its members believe that under Jewish law, an abortion is directed to occur if it is necessary to prevent physical, mental, or emotional harm to a pregnant person, even if there is not a physical health risk that is likely to cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” the court wrote.
Judge Klineman concluded that enforcing Indiana’s abortion restrictions against people who claim such beliefs would “substantially burden” their religious exercise under state law.
As a result, the court ordered that the state cannot enforce the abortion law against these plaintiffs if doing so would violate their claimed religious beliefs.
“Having already found that the Abortion Law and RFRA are in conflict, and that the State has not met its burden of showing a compelling state interest in prohibiting abortions for religious exercise, the court now finds that the Plaintiff’s remedies at law are inadequate and the outright ban of abortions for religious exercise causes irreparable harm.
The court finds that the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs harm to the Defendants because the Abortion Law already has exceptions and there has been no showing that this limited exception for religious exercise would somehow explode the number of abortions sought in contradiction of their stated interest.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
