Background
Indiana’s 2017 “aid-or-assist” law prohibits knowingly or intentionally helping an unemancipated pregnant minor obtain an abortion without satisfying the state’s parental-consent or judicial-bypass requirements. Planned Parenthood challenged the law as applied to its practice of giving minor patients factually accurate information about, and referrals to, abortion providers operating lawfully in other states.
After Indiana’s post-Dobbs abortion restrictions caused Planned Parenthood to stop providing abortions within the state, the organization continued offering information and referrals concerning lawful out-of-state care. The district court granted summary judgment to Planned Parenthood and permanently barred state officials from enforcing the aid-or-assist law against that speech. Indiana officials appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction with one modification. It held that Planned Parenthood had standing to pursue its pre-enforcement challenge against members of the Indiana Medical Licensing Board because the law objectively chilled speech by its physicians and exposed them to possible professional discipline. But the claim against the Commissioner of Health had become moot because Planned Parenthood’s clinics no longer held licenses to perform abortions in Indiana, leaving the Commissioner unable to impose relevant licensing sanctions. The court therefore removed the Commissioner from the injunction.
On the merits, the court held that providing information and referrals concerning abortions lawfully available in other states is protected speech, not speech integral to unlawful conduct or speech merely incidental to conduct. As applied, the law discriminated based on content and viewpoint because it restricted speech that helps a minor obtain an abortion while permitting speech taking the opposite position.
Applying strict scrutiny, the court concluded that Indiana had not shown the restriction was narrowly tailored to its compelling interest in protecting the parent-child relationship. The state offered insufficient evidence that suppressing the information advanced its asserted interests, and the law was both overinclusive and underinclusive. Judge Scudder concurred in the judgment, reasoning more narrowly that the notarized-consent requirement made the law overinclusive.
Key Takeaways
- Truthful information and referrals concerning medical care that is legal in another state are protected by the First Amendment.
- An organization may establish pre-enforcement standing when threatened licensing discipline against its physician employees chills the organization’s own speech.
- Indiana’s aid-or-assist law failed strict scrutiny as applied to Planned Parenthood’s out-of-state abortion information and referrals.
Why It Matters
The decision limits Indiana’s ability to use professional licensing authority to suppress speech about abortion services lawfully available beyond its borders. It also distinguishes restrictions on performing or facilitating unlawful in-state medical procedures from restrictions on communicating accurate information about lawful out-of-state care.
The ruling is expressly as applied: it protects Planned Parenthood’s dissemination of information, referrals, and contacts involving lawful out-of-state abortion providers. It does not invalidate the aid-or-assist statute in every application or prevent private parties from attempting to invoke the statute’s civil-enforcement provisions.