In a May 20 filing, Indiana Solicitor General James Barta, on behalf of the attorney general, requests the state's high court agree to review the appellate court opinion — a process known as granting transfer — which also would immediately vacate, or set aside, the unanimous Court of Appeals decision. Barta claims the appeals court got it wrong when it held Senate Enrolled Act 1 (2022) violates the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by substantially burdening the religious beliefs of Hoosiers — particularly those who do not accept the notion that life begins at conception or whose faith favors protecting the life or health of a living woman over the potential life of a fetus. Specifically, Barta argues RFRA cannot be construed to establish a right to abortion because the state has a valid interest in protecting prenatal life from the moment of conception.
"Indiana's long history of treating abortion as a criminal offense reflects its conviction that legal protections inherent in personhood commence before birth," Barta said. Moreover, Barta claims the abortion ban exceptions — including risks to a pregnant woman's life or major bodily functions, lethal fetal anomaly, and pregnancies caused by rape or incest — do not favor one religious creed over another, but rather reflect "a legislative judgment consistent with history, moral philosophy and biological markers." "RFRA authorizes governments to burden religious exercise as necessary to further compelli.
