Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in its action alleging that Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 340 (Act), which requires physicians to report to State any of 25 specified adverse physical or psychological conditions arising from induction or performance of abortion, was unconstitutionally vague. While Ct. of Appeals agreed that certain aspects of Act were not clear with respect to extent to which complications must be caused by abortion itself, and that Act lacked mens rea requirement despite carrying term of imprisonment, it nevertheless found that Act had discernable core that precluded Dist. Ct. from granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and issuing injunction with respect to enforcement of Act, where State agency had not yet issued guidance on Act's application and no state court had attempted to interpret it. Ct. further noted that core of listed abortion complications satisfied void-for-vagueness test applicable to instant facial, pre-enforcement challenge, since Act was understandable by persons of ordinary intelligence and not subject to arbitrary enforcement. Ct. also observed that future, as-applied vagueness challenge to instant Act may have different outcome. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Abortion