By Sabene Rizvi
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, it opened the door for more religiously motivated bans and restrictions on abortion. State to state, bodily autonomy and whose religious beliefs truly matter now vary dramatically.
Researchers and activists have increasingly examined the intersection of reproductive rights and church-state separation at both state and federal levels. Christian Nationalists not only seek to limit bodily autonomy and religious expression that is different from their own but also to shape educational policies and civic norms.
Yet interfaith coalitions have fought back. For example, more than a dozen lawsuits in eight states have been filed by clergy and members of various denominations arguing that abortion bans violate their religious freedom, as American studies scholar Anne Légier documents in the journal article “The Religious Freedom Argument for Abortion Rights.” Americans United and allies filed one such lawsuit in Missouri, which contributed to advocacy efforts that ultimately led to voters overturning the ban in 2024.
The fight for true religious freedom continues in my home state of Indiana.
In September 2022, Indiana enacted a near-total abortion ban that remains largely in effect.
The ACLU of Indiana filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of five plaintiffs, three of whom identified as Jewish, arguing that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects their sincerely held religious beliefs, including the right to abortion. An injunction was granted, but the ban remained in effect while the state appealed.
The Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately found that the abortion ban violated religious liberty protections, holding that terminating a pregnancy can constitute a religious exercise and affirming the injunction. The court recognized that religious protections apply to pregnant people as well.
Despite this ruling, Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office argued the decision applied only to the named plaintiffs, leaving the broader ban intact while the case continues to wind its way through the courts. A trial court judge is expected to issue a decision in the case soon.
This limitation underscores the inconsistency in how Indiana applies RFRA, raising broader questions about whose religious beliefs are recognized and protected. Indeed, when Indiana’s RFRA was signed into law by former Gov. Mike Pence (R) in 2015, AU and allies warned that Christian Nationalists intended to misuse the law as a license to discriminate, especially against 2SLGBTQIA+ people, rather than as a shield to protect religious freedom for all.
That’s why in the Indiana abortion ban case, AU was joined by fourteen religious and civil rights organizations in filing a friend-of-the-court brief that looked beyond the state’s RFRA and explained how the abortion ban violated religious-freedom protections embedded in the Indiana Constitution.
Legislation prohibiting abortion based on the belief that life begins at conception privileges one theological view over others, interfering with the diverse spiritual beliefs of Americans. For example, in the Indiana case, Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, a Muslim plaintiff argued that Indiana’s definition of life differed from her religion’s definition and violated her religious freedom by restricting access to abortions.
Similar tensions appear in Indiana’s public schools. A new law passed in 2024 permits students to leave campus for religious instruction during school hours (called release time for religious instruction). Although release time programs are constitutional, they disrupt the school day and can pressure students to take religious classes so they don’t feel left out by their friends. Other critics like the Secular Education Association have identified LifeWise’s goal to convert students and questionable tactics of giving candy, toys, and parties so students who don’t attend are jealous and may be subjected to bullying. Parents and education advocates have called for greater scrutiny.
In another example, complaints on Attorney General Rokita’s “Eyes on Education” website – a portal where parents, students and community members can submit educational materials they find objectionable – frequently target discussions of abortion and sexual identity. Rokita stated the portal is a means to “view real examples of socialist indoctrination from classrooms across the state” while his office stated that it will “follow up” on submissions that they find may violate state law using investigative tools such as public records requests.
Critics have voiced concerns that Rokita’s website is displaying select complaints without vetting them; some complaints reportedly were inaccurate or out of date. By choosing which complaints to publicly display, regardless of whether his office investigates them, Rokita is demonstrating how state oversight can reinforce narrow moral views.
Parents and advocates continue to express concerns over Indiana’s abstinence based sex-ed curricula and the disparity between the quality of sex education among Indiana school districts. SB 88 requires public schools, including charter schools to teach students that they must wait until marriage to have children.
Since the Indiana Department of Education does not mandate sex education as part of the Core 40 curricula, some school districts offer no sex-ed, while others focus on abstinence only education relying on programs through Crisis Pregnancy Centers (which are fake clinic attempting to attract individuals trying to reproductive health care and provide false, manipulative information about abortion care) such as the Terre Haute Crisis Pregnancy Center which teaches students that not-engaging in pre-marital sex is the best choice.
These accounts raise questions about the religious frameworks shaping public education and whether such approaches are safe for young people.
They also raise concerns about private voucher programs that allow public funds to support private religious schools. For example, students at Bishop Dwenger High School in Fort Wayne, which accepts vouchers, have co-led the anti-abortion March for Life rally in Washington, D.C., several times.
Indiana’s abortion law, the use of vouchers to support schools that promote specific religious beliefs and the attorney general’s limited recognition of religious exemptions for only people with certain religious beliefs: Whose religious freedom does the state of Indiana protect, and can it be considered a neutral party that safeguards the beliefs and religious expressions of all Hoosiers?
Sabene Rizvi is a member of Americans United’s Youth Organizing Fellowship program. The views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of Americans United.
Photo: AU President and CEO Rachel Laser (right) is joined by Missouri faith leader plaintiffs the Rev. Traci Blackmon, Maharat Rori Picker Neiss, and Bishop Deon Johnson (from left) to rally for abortion rights in Missouri in 2023. Credit: Americans United/Girl Louie
