Print

Final Judgment in Planned Parenthood Case Protects Access to Health Care in Lafayette

On January 7, 2015, after more than a year in which the fate of a Lafayette, Ind. health center was in potential jeopardy, a federal judge put to rest the question of whether the state of Indiana can constitutionally implement a law that regulates a clinic offering non-surgical abortion more strictly than physicians' offices providing the exact same procedure.

"We're happy that this case is resolved, and that we can continue providing services in Lafayette uninterrupted, just as we have done for nearly 50 years," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. "Non-surgical abortion is a safe, highly regulated procedure, and laws such as this do nothing to protect a woman's health and safety. We're grateful to our partners at ACLU of Indiana for so ably demonstrating that this law was unconstitutional."

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson entered a permanent injunction and final judgment in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana's case on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, saying the state law passed by the Indiana General Assembly in 2013—Indiana Code §16-18-2-1.5(a)(2) and §16-21-2-2.5(b)—is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"We are pleased that Judge Magnus-Stinson has entered a final judgment in this case," said ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk. "We hope this is the end of legislative efforts to unconstitutionally regulate abortions and abortion providers."

"We're happy that this case is resolved, and that we can continue providing services in Lafayette uninterrupted, just as we have done for nearly 50 years," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. "Non-surgical abortion is a safe, highly regulated procedure, and laws such as this do nothing to protect a woman's health and safety. We're grateful to our partners at ACLU of Indiana for so ably demonstrating that this law was unconstitutional."

Click here to download legal documents in this case