Can Religion Count as a Religious Exemption to Abortion?

     In 2022, the Hoosier Jews for Choice and four anonymous women, from varying religious faiths, sued the state of Indiana to challenge the state’s, near total, ban on abortion. The Indiana law banning abortion (S.E.A. 1) states that abortions are illegal in the state with the few exceptions of rape and incest, lethal fetal anomalies, and risk of life and physical health to the mother. The plaintiffs state that their rights are being violated under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA ). This act states that the state and/or local government may not substantially burden a person’s ability to freely exercise their religion unless there is a compelling state interest or it is the least restrictive way of furthering compelling state interest. The plaintiffs in this case are arguing that their religious beliefs are being burdened by the abortion ban, citing that both the Jewish and Islamic faiths believe that life begins at birth and not conception. The State has fought back against this argument, stating that it is too broad, while the ACLU of Indiana, who is representing the plaintiffs, argued that the burden of the law being placed on the plaintiffs is life altering and prevents them from being able to freely exercise their religions. 

In March of 2026, the Marion County Supreme Court of Indiana converted abortion protections into permanent injunctions which banned states from enforcing the abortion law against those whose religious views went against it. However, the state once again argued that the injunction was too broad, noting that outlawing abortions did not fall directly under issues of religious freedom for the plaintiffs. 

On September 10th, 2026, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments as the state chose to appeal the previous injunction made, and enforce a near total ban on abortions against those with religious objections. The state argued that this was an unprecedented ruling, and never, had a ruling favored intentionally destroying human life. They also stated that the injuries claimed by the plaintiffs are purely hypothetical because during the process of litigation over the years, none of the plaintiffs were ever pregnant. They also noted that it was not similar to the ruling of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby because the plaintiffs in that case faced financial penalties that would amount to millions of dollars, an non-hypothetical damage in their opinion. 

The ACLU responded that the plaintiffs have had to change their behaviors in fundamental ways that prevent them from being impregnated, in fear that they will not be able to obtain an abortion, even when they are religiously required. They also noted that it is not fair for lawmakers to decide what religious beliefs are, and when they can and cannot be used as exemptions. 

The Supreme Court of Indiana has not yet released an opinion on this case and has not announced when they are expected to make a decision on the facts presented within the arguments. 

So the legal issue is presented as follows: does the Indiana abortion law infringe upon the freedom of exercise of religious groups that believe that life begins at birth? 

I think that this is a very interesting but tricky case. This seems to once again be a case where a law is facially neutral, but in the end does discriminate against some religions. In this case, the Islamic and Jewish faiths believe that life begins at birth, not conception like the Christian religion suggests. I agree that this law could impose a life altering burden on someone, especially whose religion permits abortions. I also find the ACLU arguments about the government and lawmakers deciding how people should view their religious beliefs and practice them goes against Indiana’s RFRA law which protects the freedom of exercising religion for those living in Indiana. 

I do wonder how this case, and others, would play out if the country’s majority (and in some ways, founding) religion, of Christianity, believed that life began at birth. The faiths at the center of the plaintiffs argument are minority faiths in the US and who the Free Exercise Clause seeks to protect. Abortion is a topic that across many religions and groups of people is heavily contested, however, I believe the arguments given by the plaintiffs are very compelling. Allowing lawmakers to infer how a widely recognized religion with “deeply rooted” beliefs can act on those beliefs could create a “slippery slope” for future cases. The Free Exercise Clause exists so that minority religions can be protected and have the ability to practice what they believe without government interference, the court deciding in favor of the state could create a precedent for lawmakers using their power to direct people on how to practice their religions.