June 23, 2026

Today, LRRP filed an amicus brief in the Indiana Supreme Court in support of the plaintiffs in support of the religious plaintiffs challenging Indiana’s abortion ban as a violation of their religious freedom. In March, a trial court held that the state’s abortion ban violated the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act by prohibiting abortions, including those motivated by a patient’s religious faith. The court granted a permanent injunction exempting religiously motivated abortions from the ban.

Our brief draws on interviews conducted by religious studies scholars with individuals from a range of faith backgrounds who have had abortions. Their accounts document something that is often obscured in legal and political debates: for many people of faith, the decision to end a pregnancy is made because of, not despite, their religious commitments—in prayer, in conversation with religious leaders, and in the sincere conviction that their faith calls them toward that choice.

What does it mean for an abortion to be religiously motivated? Below are some examples from the interviews underlying our brief, which include the experiences of Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish abortion patients:

For some, the decision emerges through prayer. One Black Protestant woman described praying intensively in the days before her abortion: “I wanted to know that I was doing the right thing. And so, I prayed and I prayed and I was just praying a lot. And yeah, I think my answer was in the peace that I got in my decision, I truly felt like I was doing the right thing.” A Catholic woman described arriving at peace through sustained prayer—a peace she understood as a sign of God’s will.

For others, the decision is rooted in religious doctrine. One Jewish woman invoked the concept of pikuach nefesh—the obligation to preserve life—in reflecting on her decision: “There were times I really was very fearful for my safety…and safety for my child had I had this baby…Was this some pikuach nefesh [saving a life] for myself? Yes, I think it was.” Another described consulting her rabbi, whose guidance was unambiguous: her doctor “called [a rabbi] and asked him what he would recommend, and he absolutely, you know, unequivocally recommended an abortion. He didn’t say you could, he said you should.”

Other women feel God guiding them in their choice. A Muslim woman reflecting on a pregnancy affected by a genetic condition considered whether it was “Allah’s way of guiding me to end” the pregnancy. Another woman described a sense of divine guidance: “I just felt like He [God] was saying, ‘Now is not the time right now. You have so much going on that this baby would not have the life that you want for it.’”

These are not marginal or unusual accounts. They reflect the findings of a systematic research project that now encompasses more than 180 interviews with religious individuals who have had abortions. Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) exists precisely to protect sincere religious exercise of this kind.

The Indiana RFRA prohibits the state from substantially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest pursued through the least restrictive means available. For plaintiffs whose faith motivates them to seek an abortion beyond the ban’s narrow exceptions, being compelled to carry a pregnancy is exactly such a burden.

The accounts described above, drawn from interviews with women of different religious backgrounds, are precisely the kind of sincere, faith-grounded decision-making that Indiana’s RFRA was designed to shelter from state interference.

A win here would not end Indiana's abortion ban. It would, however, require the state to exempt individuals whose sincere religious beliefs are substantially burdened by the ban. For a fuller account of what this case means and how we got here, see Dr. Christine Ryan's piece for Rewire News Group.

LRRP Resources on the Religious Liberty Right to Abortion

• Q&A on the Religious Right to Abortion: Answers to the most common questions about what RFRA does and doesn’t protect.

• A Religious Right to Abortion: Legal History and Analysis: Our foundational resource on how RFRA and state religious freedom laws have been used to challenge abortion bans.

• 3 Myths About Religious Freedom and Abortion: An accessible explainer debunking the most common misconceptions.

• The Abortion Exception (Columbia Law Review Forum): LRRP Director Liz Platt responds to critiques of religious-right-to-abortion litigation.

• What a Religious Right to Abortion Means for Religious Liberty: Liz Reiner Platt for the Gender Policy Report.

The Law, Rights and Religion Project at Union Theological Seminary works to advance a vision of religious liberty that protects everyone—not just those with the most political power. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, you can subscribe here.