Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Challenge to Indiana Fetal Remains Law http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2023/05/supreme-court-denies-cert-in-challenge.html
Indiana mandated abortion providers to bury or cremate abortions solely to impose its religious view that life begins at conception. That an abortioned pregnancy must be treated the same as a human being is obviously a religious view that is not universally shared. The law should violate the Establishment Clause. Of course, it doesn't.
Sounds like the case was pretty weak, quoting from the lower court:
"What’s more, neither of the two plaintiffs who has had an abortion contends that a third party’s cremation or burial of fetal remains would cause her to violate any religious principle indirectly. What these two plaintiffs contend is that cremation or burial implies a view—the personhood of an unborn fetus—that they do not hold. They maintain that only human beings are cremated or buried. This is questionable. Dogs, cats, and other pets may be cremated or buried, sometimes as a result of legal requirements not to put animals’ bodies in the garbage."
Yeah, it does come across to me as a case where it got lost in a technicality.
The legislature may have threaded a needle to just barely put it outside the boundaries of court action.
Well, that's democracy.
@volkris
The first part goes to the free exercise claim.
The second part does address the establishment clause claim, but really, it is obvious why the legislature required burial/cremation of an abortion, and it is not because the lawmakers think a pregnancy is akin to a dog. I