High court clears way for abortion restrictions in Indiana

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for an Indiana state law that places some of the nation's most severe restrictions on abortions, including requirements that a woman be counseled face-to-face about the risks and offered pictures of what her fetus might look like.

The high court turned down an appeal from abortion clinics in Indiana claiming the in-person counseling sessions would force some women to forgo abortions or to risk their health by postponing the procedure far into pregnancy.

"This is an outrageous law that leaves many women without access to abortions, or certainly places a heavy burden, an undue burden, on a woman's right to choose," said Kate Michelman, president of the pro-abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

But Mike Fichter, executive director of Indiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, said, "For the first time abortion providers in Indiana will be required to give women information about the risks. We're glad that the court battles look like they're finally over."

18-hour waiting period

The high court action means that Indiana may begin fully enforcing a law passed eight years ago that requires in-person counseling and an 18-hour waiting period before a woman can get an abortion.

In practice, the Indiana law and similar measures on the books in four other states require women to make two trips to an abortion clinic. Opponents said that makes the procedure especially difficult to obtain for poor women, or those who must travel long distances.

Making two trips often means leaving work for two days, finding a place to stay overnight and arranging child care at home, said Janet Crepps, staff lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights. Women may also have a hard time explaining their absence from work, school or a husband or partner who does not know about the pregnancy, Crepps said.

Opponents of the Indiana law said research showed that similar laws in Mississippi and Utah forced women to put off abortions because of scheduling difficulties or travel out of state to have abortions.

Louisiana and Wisconsin also have similar in-person counseling requirements.

The Supreme Court did not comment in rejecting the case, which could have offered a new opportunity to review when state restrictions on abortion become unconstitutional. Nearly every state places some restriction on the availability of the procedure, including requirements that women wait a day or so after requesting an abortion and that they receive certain medical or legal information beforehand.

The high court has allowed a variety of restrictions, so long as they do not place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to get an abortion.

'Informed consent'

In Indiana, a 1995 law required that women give what the state called "informed consent" before getting an abortion. That means abortion clinics and doctors must tell women about alternatives to abortion and about the availability of child support if the pregnancy goes forward. Abortion providers also must describe the fetus at its current stage of development and offer to show the woman pictures of a fetus at the same stage.

The state legislature said it intended to inform women about abortions and to try to persuade fewer women to have them. A spokeswoman for the state attorney general did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Seven abortion clinics and a doctor challenged the law in federal court, and the requirement for an in-person interview has never taken effect. Until Monday, women who sought abortions could avoid making two trips to the clinic by agreeing to hear the state-mandated information over the telephone.

Testimony before a federal judge in 2000 showed that the required information did nothing to change women's minds, Crepps said. That judge found that requiring face-to-face meetings would deny abortions to an estimated 10- to 12 percent of women who wanted them.

"It is demeaning to women to suggest they are making the decision in haste and without careful thought and consultation with the people who are important to them," Crepps said.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the in-person counseling rule constitutional last year. A majority of a three-judge appeals court panel said the law does not create too great a burden for women, in part because it would waive the counseling requirement in a medical emergency.

The case is A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 02-935.