{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.banks.senate.gov/news/press-releases/banks-stands-for-life-as-indiana-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-landmark-abortion-case/", "Banks Stands for Life as Indiana Supreme Court\u00a0Hears Oral Arguments in Landmark Abortion Case", "2026-09-11", "2026", "2026-09", "Republican", "Senate", "IN", "Jim Banks", "B001299", "www.banks.senate.gov", "banks", "https://www.banks.senate.gov/news/press-releases/", "scraper", "INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. \u2013 In late May, Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) filed an amicus brief in the Indiana Supreme Court supporting Indiana\u2019s pro-life law. The brief was submitted in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous, which involves a challenge to Indiana\u2019s pro-life law brought under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.\n\nSenator Banks argues in his brief that: (1) There is no religious right to an abortion; (2) Laws protecting religious freedom do not protect killing and other forms of violence, including when the victims are unborn; and (3) The tradition of Indiana and the United States is to protect the unborn as persons entitled to the right to life. Indiana attorneys James Bopp, Jr. and John Westercamp served as local counsel on the brief.\n\nThis week, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. This makes the Indiana Supreme Court the first high court in the world to consider whether there is a religious right to an abortion.\n\nSenator Jim Banks (R-Ind.): \u201cThere is no religious right to an abortion, it\u2019s that simple. Every unborn child deserves the right to life, and the Indiana Supreme Court has a responsibility to ensure our state\u2019s pro-life law remains in full effect.\u201d\n\nJames Bopp, Jr.: \u201cIndiana\u2019s compelling governmental interest in protecting unborn life is not a loophole to be argued around. It holds under the federal constitution, the state constitution, and RFRA. Every unborn child in Indiana is entitled to that protection, and no legal theory changes that fact.\u201d\n\nJohn Westercamp: \u201cReligious liberty may never be used as a pretext to justify violence against innocent life. I\u2019m proud to work with Senator Banks as he petitions the Indiana Supreme Court to protect life.\u201d\n\nRead the full brief here.\n\nBackground:\n\nA trial court judge in Marion County became the first judge in the world to identify a religious right to abortion. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous involves a challenge to Indiana\u2019s pro-life law by Hoosier Jews for Choice, which is seeking religious exemptions from Indiana\u2019s law under the state\u2019s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Hoosier Jews for Choice alleges that its members have a religious belief that pregnant women should be able to receive abortions even where their lives or health are not at serious risk, and argues that the state\u2019s restrictions on abortion impermissibly burden this belief.\n\nThe Marion County Superior Court agreed and held that Indiana\u2019s pro-life law shall not apply to anyone whose religious beliefs support abortion.\n\nThe Indiana Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will now decide whether the state\u2019s pro-life law infringes the religious freedom of residents who support abortion.\n\nSummary of Argument:\n\n\u201cIn 2022, Indiana became the first state in the country to pass a pro-life law, following the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health, 597 U.S.215 (2022), that states can act to protect unborn life at all stages. S.E.A. 1 continues a longstanding tradition of protecting the right to life of all persons within a jurisdiction, including those who are unborn.\n\n\u201cThe trial court enjoined S.E.A. 1 as to a certified religious class under the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Ind. Code \u00a7\u00a7 34-13-9-1 et seq. (2022) (\u201cRFRA\u201d).\n\n\u201cMore than fifty years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court held Indiana\u2019s interest in protecting unborn life \u201cvalid and compelling\u201d \u201cfrom the moment of conception.\u201d Cheaney v. State, 285 N.E.2d 265, 270 (Ind. 1972). Cheaney remains good law, and the General Assembly has codified treatment of the unborn as persons deserving of the protection of the laws. Ind. Code \u00a7 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E) (2022). Indiana\u2019s interest in doing so is deeply rooted in the \u201chistory and tradition\u201d of the United States, and Dobbs restored to the states the ability to act upon it. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass\u2019n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 22 (2022).\n\n\u201cJust as Indiana has an interest in protecting unborn life, it has an interest in rejecting religious claims to end that life. There is no religious right to take a human life. Countless judicial decisions affirm the states\u2019 compelling interest in denying requests for an exemption from laws against private violence. Courts reject these requests even where practitioners\u2019 views are sincerely held and even though such laws contain other exemptions. The government has the same compelling interest in denying religious claims to abortion that it has in denying religious requests for murder and other forms of violence.\n\n\u201cThe promises of the American Founding and guarantees of the American legal tradition are for all persons. The Indiana Supreme Court should reverse the judgment of the trial court and give Indiana\u2019s pro-life law its full effect.\u201d\n\n###", 1, "2026-09-12T09:02:30Z", "2026-09-12T09:03:27Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.banks.senate.gov/news/press-releases/banks-stands-for-life-as-indiana-supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-landmark-abortion-case/"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.0610769279301167, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}