The Indiana Supreme Court considered a religious freedom challenge to the state’s near-total abortion ban this week.
The question is whether Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, passed in 2015, gives some women a religious right to an abortion.
The case was first brought in 2022 by Hoosier Jews for Choice, asserting that their deeply held religious beliefs conflict with the state’s abortion restrictions.
In March of 2026, a Marion County Superior Court judge permanently barred the state from enforcing its abortion ban against plaintiffs. That led the Indiana Attorney General’s office to appeal the decision directly to the state supreme court.
Attorney James Barta argued on behalf of the state.
“Our nation's long tradition of respect for religious exercise has never been understood to encompass a right to intentionally destroy human life,” he told the justices.
Indiana’s RFRA law holds that deeply held religious beliefs can serve as a legal defense against some government regulations, if that religious practice is “substantially burdened.”
Chief Justice Loretta Rush asked the state to explain why religious exemptions wouldn’t apply in this case.
“Explain why the importance of religious freedom butting up against this is just game over,” she said.
“That [RFRA] doesn't create carte blanche to override a statute that is in fact pursuing a compelling interest,” Barta replied.
Justices seemed uncertain about how the state would allow people to apply for exemptions to Indiana’s near-total abortion ban and how an exempt class of people could be determined.
ACLU Attorney Ken Falk represents the plaintiffs. He asked the court why the state could provide religious exemptions so easily for things like school vaccines - but not abortion.
“I can send my kid to school without getting any immunizations by just signing a piece of paper saying it’s my religious belief,” he said. “If I’m a teacher, I can expose everyone in my class to those diseases by just signing a piece of paper.”
Falk repeatedly noted that the state has created a process in other areas.
“The state is used to religious exceptions,” he said. “The state just doesn't want to make this religious exception.”
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter asked Falk if the exemption around abortion wouldn’t result in “abortion on demand” for any person at any stage of pregnancy who wants an abortion and claims their religion requires it.
“What’s the limiting principle?” Slaughter asked.
“The limiting principle obviously always is sincerity,” Falk responded.
There is no clear timeline for the Court’s decision on the case.
In a statement released on social media, Attorney General Todd Rokita noted that the state would work to defend pro-life protections.
“For four years we have fought an unprecedented and radical attempt to weaponize the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to effectively create a right to abortion on demand,” Rokita wrote. “We’re not standing for it.”
Contact Government Reporter Benjamin Thorp at bthorp@wfyi.org
