SCOTUS Upholds Pence’s Pro-Life Law Forcing Burial for Abortion Victims

‘Unborn infants shouldn’t be disposed of as ‘medical waste’ when they die before birth…’

Federal Agents Find Preserved Fetuses In Warehouse

Photo by drsuparna (CC)

(Kaylee McGhee, Liberty Headlines) The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that a provision of an Indiana law that requires abortion clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains should take effect.

Thecourt also declined to take up another part of the law that prohibits abortions motivated by race, sex or disability, ruling that it should remain blocked.

The law, signed in 2016 by then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, was blocked last year by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge William Bauer wrote that both of these provisions barred women from obtaining abortions in situations that “clearly violate” a “well-established Supreme Court precedent. And are therefore, unconstitutional.”


And though the court refrained from weighing in on the latter provision, many pro-life advocates have praised its ruling on proper burials for deceased unborn infants as a victory for the movement.

“Indiana law helps ensure that deceased unborn infants receive proper burials—a law that the high court upheld,” Denise Burke, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement.

“Tragically, many states do not ensure that the bodies of miscarried, stillborn, or aborted infants are treated with dignity,” Burke said. “Unborn infants shouldn’t be disposed of as ‘medical waste’ when they die before birth, regardless of whether their deaths are spontaneous, accidental, or induced.”

Justice Clarence Thomas said that although he agreed with the court’s decision not to take up the provision on abortion discrimination at this time, the bench will “soon need to confront” the abortion issue.

“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote, according to CNN.

“Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope,” he said. “In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”