{"id":203243,"date":"2019-05-28T11:49:56","date_gmt":"2019-05-28T16:49:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=203243"},"modified":"2019-05-28T18:45:58","modified_gmt":"2019-05-28T23:45:58","slug":"supreme-court-indiana-fetal-remains-abortion-disability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/supreme-court-indiana-fetal-remains-abortion-disability\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS upholds Indiana fetal remains disposal law; denies abortion bans for disability, sex"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a decision with what many are calling “mixed results.” In 2016, Indiana passed a law banning abortions<\/a> on the basis of the preborn child’s sex or disability, and also required abortion facilities to either cremate or bury the remains of aborted children instead of disposing of them as medical waste. Last year, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the law, but in this decision, the Supreme Court upheld part of the law<\/a> — the latter part, requiring the humane burial of aborted children. Planned Parenthood had opposed both provisions of the law.<\/p>\n

In his opinion, noted conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “I would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”<\/p>\n

The National Law Journal noted<\/a>:<\/p>\n

In its opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had ruled that the state\u2019s interest in the \u201chumane and dignified\u201d disposal of human remains was \u201cnot legitimate\u201d and even if it were legitimate, there was no rational relationship between that interest and the law as written. The Supreme Court has acknowledged a state\u2019s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains, the justices said. <\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThe only remaining question is whether Indiana\u2019s law is rationally related to the state\u2019s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly tailored to that end,\u201d the court said in its per curiam order. The justices said that in challenging the Indiana fetal remains provision, the plaintiffs never argued the law imposed an undue burden on a woman\u2019s right to obtain an abortion. Other courts have analyzed similar provisions under that standard, but the high court said, \u201cOur opinion expresses no view on the merits of those challenges.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n