×

Our award-winning reporting has moved

Context provides news and analysis on three of the world’s most critical issues:

climate change, the impact of technology on society, and inclusive economies.

U.S. Supreme Court avoids abortion question, upholds fetal burial measure

by Reuters
Tuesday, 28 May 2019 15:42 GMT

Planned Parenthood president Dr. Leana Wen speaks at a protest against anti-abortion legislation at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2019. REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan

Image Caption and Rights Information

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's Republican-backed requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated

(Recasts first paragraph, adds background on law and other state measures, quotes from Justice Thomas)

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, May 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a mixed message on abortion, refusing to consider reinstating Indiana's ban on abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus while upholding the state's requirement that fetal remains be buried or cremated after the procedure is done.

Both provisions were part of a Republican-backed 2016 law signed by Vice President Mike Pence when he was Indiana's governor. The action by the justices comes at a time when numerous Republican-governed states including Alabama are approving restrictive abortion laws that the Supreme Court may be called upon to rule on in the future.

In an unsigned ruling, with two of the nine-member court's liberals dissenting, the Supreme Court decided that a lower court was wrong to conclude that Indiana's fetal burial provision, which imposed new requirements on abortion clinics, had no legitimate purpose. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority.

While the fetal burial provision was not a direct challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, the ruling gave anti-abortion proponents a victory at the Supreme Court, which soon may have to decide whether various state laws violate the rights recognized in that landmark ruling.

But the court also indicated a reluctance to directly tackle the abortion issue at least for now, rejecting Indiana's separate attempt to reinstate its ban on abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus. The court left in place the part of an appeals court ruling that struck down that the provision.

"While this ruling is limited, the law is part of a larger trend of state laws designed to stigmatize and drive abortion care out of reach. Whether it's a total ban or a law designed to shut down clinics, politicians are lining up to decimate access to abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of the legal challenge to the Indiana law.

The fetal burial ruling stated that the Supreme Court has previously said that states have a legitimate interest in the disposal of fetal remains. The court noted that in challenging the law, women's healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood did not allege that the provision implicated the right of women to obtain an abortion.

"This case, as litigated, therefore does not implicate our cases applying the undue burden test to abortion regulations," the ruling said.

The Indiana case was one of the court's first major tests in abortion context following the retirement last year of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was pivotal in defending abortion rights. Kennedy was replaced by President Donald Trump's conservative appointee Brett Kavanaugh.

Anti-abortion activists hope the high court will be more receptive to abortion restrictions following Kennedy's departure. Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi and other states have passed restrictive abortion laws in recent months.

FILE PHOTO: Abortion rights activists rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., May 21, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo

'TREATED WITH DIGNITY'

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group that opposes abortion, welcomed the fetal burial ruling.

"Tragically, many states do not ensure that the bodies of miscarried, stillborn or aborted infants are treated with dignity. Unborn infants shouldn't be disposed of as 'medical waste' when they die before birth, regardless of whether their deaths are spontaneous, accidental or induced," said Denise Burke, the group's senior counsel.

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to reinstate Indiana's fetal remains provision.

The Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2017 permanent injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt against both provisions of Indiana's law. She found the measure violated the constitutional privacy rights recognized in the 1973 abortion ruling.

The law forbade women from obtaining an abortion if the decision to terminate the pregnancy was based on a diagnosis or "potential diagnosis" of fetal abnormality such as Down syndrome or "any other disability" or due to the race, color, national origin ancestry or sex of the fetus. Indiana said the state has an interest in barring discrimination against fetuses and in protecting the "dignity of fetal remains."

A similar fetal burial law from Minnesota was upheld by a federal appeals court in 1990 but the Indiana law and another like it in Texas, enacted in 2016, have been struck down by the courts.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his own lengthy opinion that the court will need to weigh in on whether states can ban abortions based on disability, race and gender. Indiana's law promotes "a state's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics," Thomas wrote.

The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to hear the Indiana's appeal seeking to revive another law that requires women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours before they undergo an abortion.

The Supreme Court on Dec. 10 declined to take up another abortion-related case when it rebuffed two other conservative-leaning states - Louisiana and Kansas - that wanted to deny public funding to Planned Parenthood.

For a Reuters graphic on abortion laws in the United States, click https://tmsnrt.rs/2WZuiVP

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

2. The second line is an html element (div) with a unique ID. This ID will also appear in the script tag in the third line. You are free to change the ID of this div. However, you must also change the id referenced in the third line of code. The graphic is built to take up the entire width of whatever html element contains it. So if you would like the graphic to be smaller or larger, simply size the container element.
3. The third line of code is script tag used to create the responsive iframe for the graphic. This tag requires two specific pieces of text: the unique ID of the div created in line two, and a link to the hosted graphic. If you would rather host the graphic yourself, place the production files of the graphic on your server, and change this link to point to your hosted version.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

-->