Recently, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed House Bill 1337, a bill that was drafted for the purpose of accomplishing many pro-life initiatives. From trying to accomplish reasonable abortion clinic regulations to trying to discourage the horrific practices of sex-selection abortions or abortions based on disability or race, Indiana has certainly taken notes from the many other states which have passed very similar types of omnibus proposals.
While much of the newly signed law is ingenious, there is a provision that appears to be problematic. Many in the prolife movement celebrated since this was supposed to be a bill that would prohibit the practice of abortion based on discrimination. In essence, the bill is supposed to ensure “That Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability” (See Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1337, pg. 8). However, there is a question as to how this will be enforced since nowhere within the bill does the woman have to inform the abortionist as to why she is terminating the life of her unborn child. While the law will have the effect of deterring some women from aborting their children for the aforementioned reasons because she must be informed orally and in writing, the simple fact remains that it will not be able to ban all forms of “discrimination” abortion. It is possible, however, that a future session of the Indiana Legislature could amend the new law by mandating that the woman must inform the abortionist, in writing, of the reason for her abortion, otherwise, Indiana’s ban for these types of abortions will be primarily symbolic and not an actual ban.
This is not to say that the other provisions in the bill are problematic, quite to the contrary. Many aspects of this bill will seek to help tighten abortion clinic regulations and help humanize the unborn child. Firstly, there are two features of HB 1337 that will help put a human face on the preborn child that is facing termination: 1) the requirement that the pregnant mother be informed that if her child has a “lethal fetal anomaly” of the option of perinatal hospice. For the uninitiated, perinatal hospice is that hospice care for those children who will die before or soon after birth. This sort of care emphasizes the human dignity of the child. The child is not perceived as a mere object to be destroyed because of some lethal abnormality. Rather the child and mother are treated as human beings made in the image of God. The family and the child are allowed to bond in a natural way and allows the parents to grieve in a natural way since the child is loved and allow to die in a peaceful manner. 2) The bill also mandates that the remains of the aborted unborn child must be interred or cremated or, if the pregnant woman chooses to pay, the child can be cremated or interred at a proper location of her choosing. This has a twofold effect: firstly it helps curb the practice of selling fetal body parts and secondly, this bill requires the mother to choose if she will participate in an actual corporeal act of mercy—to bury the dead.
This choice to bury the remains of the unborn child again humanizes him/her, but the question is how exactly? To answer this particular question, one must look at the definition of “mercy”. St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as such, “I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5), mercy is heartfelt sympathy for another’s distress, impelling us to succor him if we can. For mercy takes its name “misericordia” from denoting a man’s compassionate heart [miserum cor] for another’s unhappiness” (Summa Theologica, II-II, 30). The Church further clarifies when it states, “Charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbors in their bodily and spiritual needs” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2447). Both of these definitions help bring clarity to the issue at hand. That is the child, who will be destroyed by the sinful act of abortion, will still have a need, a right rather, to be buried (a bodily need that respects the body of the deceased). Here the mother must face the “heartfelt distress” regarding the intentional destruction of her child and the hope is that she will be moved to bury her child, thereby at least respecting the child in a small way. Some may argue that this is not really an act of mercy, but one must remember a 2004 report cited that nearly 64% of those who had an abortion felt pressured (see Medical Science Monitor 2004; 10(10):SR5-16). Interestingly, another recent study indicated that “the lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence was 24.9% among termination-seeking populations.” Many of these women are very likely suffering from some form of moral impediment and they may believe by giving the child a burial they are in some fashion respecting those bodily remains. They may feel so pressured that they may consider this to be the only merciful act they can show this child. Furthermore, in some ways it also forces the woman to truly look at what she is doing: that she is participating in an act which will destroy the child and she will have to make a very real decision on what do to do with the remains. It will no longer just be the decision of the abortion clinic rather she will have to participate in this decision of the child’s final resting place. This brutal look at reality (the reality of what abortion is, namely, the destruction of a child) may help the woman realize the horror of what she is considering.
Lastly, the bill has a brilliant provision that addresses the constitutional question of the requirement of abortionists having hospital admitting privileges. As many are aware, the state of Texas is currently fighting to keep their statute that mandates that abortionists must have admitting privileges to a hospital that is within 30 miles of their abortion practice. If, however, the US Supreme Court strikes down this pro-life provision then Indiana’s provision will remain unaffected since it allows the abortionist to either have admitting privileges or have a written agreement with a physician who has admitting privileges who will also provide follow-up care if complications should arise. As the bill states: “A physician may not perform an abortion unless the physician: (1) has admitting privileges in writing at a hospital located in the county where abortions are provided or in a contiguous county; or (2) has entered into a written agreement with a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county concerning the management of possible complications of the services provided. A written agreement described in subdivision (2) must be renewed annually” (See Indiana House Enrolled Act 1337, pg. 11). If the Texas provision is struck down, then the Indiana version will give Texas an option on how to provide continuous care for those women who suffer from post-abortive medical complications; something that is sorely lacking in the current abortion medical practice.
Indiana’s bill shows a great concern for both pregnant mother and unborn child. In some ways this bill will begin to show the public the human side of the unborn child; something that the infamous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions tried to quash. Furthermore, it shows a concern over the lack of continuous care that has plagued women for decades within an industry that has shown little to no concern when it comes to follow-up care and especially emergency situations that arise post abortion. Indeed, while not perfect, it is a step in the right direction towards a Culture of Life.
Joe Kral has been involved in the pro-life movement since he has been in college. His MA in Theology was completed at the University of St. Thomas where he specialized in bioethics. From 1996-2003 he was the Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life. During that time he was also a lobbyist for the Department of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life. From 2004-2007 he consulted the Texas Catholic Conference on pro-life legislative initiatives. In 2006 he was awarded the “Bishop’s Pro-Life Award for Civic Action” from the Respect Life Ministry in the Diocese of Dallas. He currently is an adjunct professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, teaches FTCM courses for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and also serves as a voluntary legislative advisor to Texas Alliance for Life. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 2004 and attends St. Theresa’s Catholic Church.
