This story was originally reported by Mariel Padilla of The 19th. Meet Mariel and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

INDIANAPOLIS — Does Indiana’s near-total abortion ban impinge on religious freedom? That’s the question that was brought before the Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday morning.

Oral arguments were the latest legal step in a case that began four years ago when Hoosier Jews for Choice and several anonymous plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging Indiana’s abortion ban. The case could have implications for other states with similar abortion bans and religious freedom laws if plaintiffs there bring similar lawsuits. There have been a few other attempts to challenge abortion bans on religious grounds in other states, but no case has gotten all the way to the state Supreme Court, according to Stevie Pactor, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Indiana and one of the lead litigators in the case. 

“Folks outside of Indiana are interested,” Pactor said. “I think there was a feeling of frustration, anger and helplessness after the [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, and I think a lot of people in the United States were looking for bright spots, moments of hope.” 

Indiana — which was the first state to pass an abortion restriction after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 — is uniquely positioned for this legal battle: It has one the strictest abortion bans in the country and also has strong religious freedom protections. 

The justices are expected to issue a ruling in the coming months. 

Kenneth Falk, ACLU of Indiana’s legal director who is representing Hoosier Jews for Choice and two anonymous plaintiffs, argued that the state is directly violating the rights of plaintiffs whose religion requires abortion in certain circumstances. Falk argued that the women have been harmed because they’ve already had to change their behaviors because of the abortion ban. He also argued that the state’s abortion ban already has a few exceptions — for rape, incest, fetal anomalies and when the life of the pregnant person is endangered — so religious exemptions should be included.

One anonymous plaintiff is a Jewish woman who terminated a pregnancy in March 2022 after a chromosomal defect was found that could have resulted in her child having severe and cognitive disabilities, according to the complaint. She was told that future pregnancies would be high risk, so she briefly abstained from sex with her husband to avoid pregnancy. In Jewish law and teachings, life begins when a child takes its first breath after birth and that the health of the pregnant woman takes precedence over the fetus. 

The second anonymous plaintiff is a woman who does not belong to a specific religious tradition, though she believes in a supernatural force or power and in bodily autonomy. She is married with two children and does not want to have any more children. Because of Indiana’s ban, the second plaintiff said she also reduced physical intimacy with her husband, which she argues is an impingement on a connection that is central to her spiritual beliefs.

James Barta, Indiana’s solicitor general who is representing the state of Indiana, argued that the women who brought the lawsuit don’t have legal standing because they are not currently pregnant and not facing an immediate decision about abortion. He also argued that even if they did have standing, the state has a strong “compelling interest” to “protect prenatal life.” 

“Our nation’s long tradition of respect for religious exercise has never been understood to encompass a right to intentionally destroy life — any more than a right to mistreat children,” Barta said when addressing the justices.

After the ACLU filed the lawsuit in September 2022, a Marion County trial court temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the abortion ban against the plaintiffs and members of the class action lawsuit whose faith conflicted with the law. In April 2024, the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that the abortion ban likely violates religious protections. Then in March 2026, when a county Superior Court judge issued a permanent injunction to stop the state from enforcing the ban, the Indiana attorney general immediately appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court. 

“Indiana has attempted through its legislative regime to say when life begins, and that is a deeply personal question that is not answerable by legal fiat,” Pactor said. “And as the Court of Appeals already found in this, that is a decision that every individual human being makes — perhaps guided by their faith. But it’s not something that can be legislatively mandated. And fundamentally, that’s what the plaintiffs are asking for, for their most fundamental beliefs and religious practice to be respected.” 

The justices questioned both Falk and Barta during the oral argument. 

Justice Geoffrey Slaughter asked Falk: “If the plaintiffs here prevail, will the result be what’s tantamount to abortion on demand? Any person at any stage of pregnancy who wants an abortion and claims that their religion either requires it or permits it — that’s it?”

Falk responded no. Falk said the state would have to assess people’s “sincerity.”

Chief Justice Loretta Rush pushed back against Barta’s insistence that it was necessary for a woman to be pregnant before she could bring the case to court. Rush argued that might not be a reasonable requirement when this case has already lasted more than four years — far longer than a pregnancy.

Rush also expressed concern with Falk’s argument. 

“I’m having a hard time with the layers of hypotheticals,” she said, noting that some of the plaintiffs wanted to get pregnant, some didn’t and some had changed their minds over the course of the case. She argued that Indiana’s religious freedom law also requires “particularized, individual belief.”

“I don’t how that works to lump everyone together,” Rush said. “We have got lots of amicus briefs with people believing different things. And to just say that we’ve got this amorphous thing that everybody who believes this is in — I don’t see how that’s right.”

If the justices decide to dismiss the case because it lacks legal standing, then the case goes back to square one and can be refiled at any time. If the justices decide to dismiss the case on merit, then the case is effectively over. It cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it’s an issue of state law.