Protecting unborn babies in the womb is a violation of religious freedom, according to an Indiana judge with an axe to grind against pro-life policy and people of faith.
Recently, Judge Christina R Klineman ruled that Indiana’s pro-life law violates the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This decision delivered a win to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which in 2022 sued over Indiana’s pro-life law on behalf of several unidentified women and ‘Hoosier Jews for Choice’.
The ACLU’s lawsuit claimed that Paganism, Judaism and other religious groups mandate abortion access. After nearly four years of litigation, Judge Klineman’s recent decision agreed that the state pro-life law violated their religious freedom and that it was inconsistent for the law to exclude ‘religious exceptions’ when it allows exceptions for cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a mother.
Almost immediately, Indiana attorney general Todd Rokita appealed the decision, sending it to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Critics argue that the court should overturn the ruling, both to protect pro-life policy in conservative states and to preserve religious freedom nationwide.
Judge Klineman and her husband Andy have a well-documented history of donating to left-wing political causes, including candidates known for supporting expansive abortion policy, which some observers say raises questions regarding her impartiality.
One $1,000 donation Judge Klineman made to the pro-abortion ‘Friends of Ray Linsenmayer’ campaign in 2017 has also raised potential judicial ethics concerns. According to the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, sitting judges generally cannot donate to political candidates unless they are in the same election cycle – which would not apply to Ray Linsenmayer’s federal race in Pennsylvania.
Judge Klineman’s 2017 donation to Ray Linsenmayer lists her occupation as ‘commissioner’ on the Marion County Court. According to Ballotpedia, Judge Klineman served as commissioner on the Marion County Court from 2009 until 2014 when she was elected to the county’s Superior Court, taking up that role the following year. She served in the criminal division until 2023 and currently presides over Marion County’s Superior Court 1. Whether she misrepresented her occupation in connection with the donation remains unclear.
Her history aside, many Americans are sceptical that Judge Klineman’s decision was free from partisan political considerations. Over the years, religious freedom experts have noted that ‘abortion is not a religious exercise’ and has never legally been recognised as such. They have also pointed to what they describe as growing evidence that the plaintiffs’ beliefs ‘are insincere’.
Some have additionally pointed to what they describe as ‘pro-abortion zealotry’ in Indiana courts, and to the lawsuit’s timing following the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022. One religious freedom expert summarised the case as a pro-abortion attempt to ‘manipulate the principles and legal precedent of religious freedom in a desperate attempt to undermine new state laws restricting abortion’.
Pro-life advocates fear that this characterisation may prove accurate. According to the Indianapolis Star, ‘Indiana is the first state to have a successful abortion ban challenge on these grounds… it could establish a framework for legal challenges to broaden abortion access across the country’. Activists in conservative states across the country are closely watching the outcome of the appeal to determine whether similar lawsuits could be brought against their own state laws on ‘religious grounds’.
Establishing abortion as a religious ‘requirement’ in Indiana would enable individuals to seek exemptions from the state’s abortion law by stating that the procedure was required by their ‘sincerely held religious belief’. Critics argue that other states could follow Indiana’s example, potentially creating loopholes in pro-life laws that might justify abortion at any time, for any reason, and possibly leading to ‘religious freedom’ lawsuits against doctors who refuse to provide them.
Religious freedom experts from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty have also warned that what they describe as a disingenuous ‘expansion of RFRA will damage the law of RFRA and ultimately the free exercise of religion in Indiana’. With other states closely watching the outcome of the case, Indiana’s RFRA would not be the only one affected. The authentic religious exercise of Americans, they argue, could be threatened nationwide.
For that reason, critics say it is essential that the Indiana Court of Appeals overturn the ruling and clarify that religious freedom protections cannot be used to undermine laws designed to protect unborn life. The outcome of the appeal will not only affect Indiana, but may also shape how similar challenges are brought across the United States.
