{"id":29680,"date":"2023-05-01T19:23:00","date_gmt":"2023-05-01T19:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/us-supreme-court-spurns-2\/"},"modified":"2023-05-01T19:23:42","modified_gmt":"2023-05-01T19:23:42","slug":"us-supreme-court-spurns-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/us-supreme-court-spurns-2\/","title":{"rendered":"US Supreme Court spurns challenge to Indiana abortion cremation or burial law"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By Andrew Chung<\/p>\n<p>(Reuters) &#8211;     The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the legality of an Indiana requirement that abortion providers bury or cremate embryonic or fetal remains following the procedure, sidestepping another dispute involving a contentious Republican-backed state policy concerning abortion.<\/p>\n<p>The justices turned away an appeal by an Indianapolis abortion clinic and two women who underwent abortions at the facility of a decision by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate Indiana&#8217;s requirement after a federal judge had invalidated it. <\/p>\n<p>A law signed in 2016 by Republican then-Governor and future U.S. Vice President Mike Pence imposed a requirement that clinics cremate or bury the tissue from abortions or miscarriages rather than using the standard method of incineration for human medical waste. <\/p>\n<p>The law, which the state&#8217;s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita said in court papers aimed to ensure the &#8220;respectful disposition of human remains,&#8221; also lets patients dispose of the remains on their own.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs argued that the law unconstitutionally compelled them to express the state&#8217;s message that an embryo or fetus is a person and ran afoul of their moral or religious beliefs by treating embryonic tissue in the same manner as the remains of a deceased person.<\/p>\n<p>U.S. District Judge Richard Young found that the provision violated the challengers&#8217; religious freedom and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s First Amendment. But the 7th Circuit last year overturned that decision.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Constitution continues to protect everyone&#8217;s ability to think and speak freely on matters of conscience,&#8221; said Rupali Sharma, an attorney at the Lawyering Project, a legal group focusing on reproductive rights that represented the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n<p>Sharma expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court&#8217;s action and vowed to &#8220;continue to stand with the brave abortion patients and providers fighting to honor their convictions.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Rokita praised the court&#8217;s order as &#8220;consistent with the understanding that life is precious and should be treated accordingly.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Nothing is more foundational to ordered liberty in America than the right to life,&#8221; Rokita said, adding that &#8220;unborn, innocent children must be treated with the dignity they rightly deserve.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court upheld Indiana&#8217;s measure in 2019 in a separate challenge, concluding that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring the proper disposal of fetal remains and that it did not implicate the right of women to obtain an abortion. <\/p>\n<p>There has been a fierce battle over reproductive rights in the United States since the conservative-majority Supreme Court&#8217;s decision last June to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized the procedure nationwide. Since then, numerous Republican-governed states have put in place outright bans on abortion or prohibitions after a certain length of pregnancy. Indiana&#8217;s ban is currently blocked after decisions by lower court judges. <\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court on April 21 blocked restrictions set by lower courts on a widely used abortion pill while litigation continues in lower courts in a challenge by abortion opponents to the drug&#8217;s federal regulatory approval.<\/p>\n<p>The abortion clinic Women&#8217;s Med, along with patients and staff, sued state officials in 2020 over the Indiana bury or cremate law as well as new disclosure requirements for abortion providers enacted that year. <\/p>\n<p>The 7th Circuit concluded that there is no constitutional violation because the law applies only to hospitals and clinics not individuals. Women themselves &#8220;may choose to take custody of the remains and dispose of them as they please,&#8221; that court added. <\/p>\n<p \/>\n<p> (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/us-supreme-court-spurns-2\/file-photo-u-s-supreme-court-building-in-washington-14\/\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-content\/uploads\/Reuters_Direct_Media\/USOnlineReportTopNews\/tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ400MZ-VIEWIMAGE.jpg\" alt=\"tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ400MZ-VIEWIMAGE\"><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Andrew Chung (Reuters) &#8211; The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to the legality of an Indiana requirement that abortion providers bury or cremate embryonic or fetal remains following the procedure, sidestepping another dispute involving a contentious Republican-backed state policy concerning abortion. The justices turned away an appeal by an [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":29953,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1214],"tags":[1223],"class_list":["post-29680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-u-s-domestic","tag-updated"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-content\/uploads\/Reuters_Direct_Media\/USOnlineReportTopNews\/tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ400MZ-VIEWIMAGE.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29680","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29680"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29680\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29954,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29680\/revisions\/29954"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}