Abortion in Indiana
Once Indiana’s legislature took up the question of an abortion ban, I decided to head to Indianapolis for a few days. Earlier in the week, the story had gone national when contingents on both sides showed up at the Capitol. The pro-choice side turned out in large numbers, filling the Capitol’s atrium with a carpet of blue shirts. Meanwhile, what appeared to be several hundred abortion-rights activists spilled onto the street in front of the Capitol’s main entrance, with placards in hand.
Booking my hotel room, I wondered whether those crowds would grow as the proposal progressed through a legislative process having a largely predetermined outcome: enactment of a ban. The only suspense was over just how broad a ban — would there be exceptions for rape and incest? After searching the web, I learned of two planned rallies, one for Thursday and the other for Friday. I had also contacted two local newspaper reporters. They informed me that as far as they knew, no demonstrations were planned for Saturday. I found that surprising given that Saturdays are often when large demonstrations are held.
I had read that the proposal would be taken up for final vote next week. I was unsure exactly how that might affect turnout over the weekend. With the issue still alive, would people gather at the Capitol, or would they wait until a final vote was imminent?
Realizing that I was taking a gamble, I booked two nights in a hotel near the Capitol, figuring I could always extend my stay. As it happens, I didn’t need to. My time in Indianapolis did not generate great imagery, but I operate under a simple principle: If you don’t show up, you. get nothing.
Thursday. I arrived early Thursday afternoon, and walked the two blocks to the Capitol. After passing through the metal detectors, I went to the press office, obtaining a temporary pass to the House’s press gallery. I found the legislators debating amendments to House Bill 1001. Unlike Senate Bill 1, the House bill did not contain an abortion ban, at least according to a detailed summary posted to the legislature’s website. I took this to mean that a decision had been made to allow the Senate to finalize the language before the House took up the matter.
The headline provision in House Bill 1001 provides for a $225 million tax rebate, but as the debate proceeded, it was clear that the abortion ban was on everyone’s mind. The bill included provisions on contraception, infant formula, and instruction on family planning methods.
Before I entered the chambers, I encountered a dozen or so pro-life demonstrators standing in front of the large interior windows that provide spectators with a fishbowl view of the House proceedings. Inside the chambers, the Democrats’ overall message to the Republicans was as expected: “If you are going to ban abortions, you had better be prepared to support the mothers and newborns with more financial aid and services.”
I also found some gallows humor in the debate. One House member noted that reductions to the gas tax might encourage residents of Illinois and Michigan to cross the border to buy gas. I thought, “Well turn around is fair play. An Indiana ban on abortion would certainly equalize the flow in both directions.”
Later in the afternoon, I headed outside where I saw about 20 abortion-rights activists on the Capitol steps, encouraging passing motorists to honk in opposition to a proposed abortion ban. Among the crowd, were a number of children who were receiving an early lesson in civic engagement.
[Click on an Image to Enlarge It]
A Pro-Life Group Confers
The Two Sides May Hate Each Other, But They Apparently Don’t Vandalize Each Other’s Signs
Pro-Life Advocates Showing House Members Where They Stand
A Bill Pertaining to Matters Affecting Families and Children
Republican Representative Stephen Bartels Debating an Amendment to House Bill 1001
Indiana House Members Debating Bill 1001
Bill Sponsor Sharon Negele Discussing the Amendments
Not Much Has Changed Since 1988—There Is Division Throughout Indiana and the Country
Some Pro-Lifers Waited for the Senate Hearing to Begin
A Happy Pro-Lifer
Ready for the Next Occupant
Raising Their Signs for the Evening Commute
“Honk, If You Agree A Woman Should Have Choice” [My Words]
Happy to Display Her Sign
The Afternoon Commuters Head Home
A Discussion with the Police (I Don’t Know What They Were Discussing)
A Young Activist
After Much Effort, I Am Still Not Clear Exactly What this Sign Means, But It Is No Longer There Because Someone Who Saw Me Photographing It Walked Over and Tore It Down
Friday. I returned Friday morning for the Jewish Day of Action for Reproductive Justice, sponsored by the National Council of Jewish Women and ADL Midwest. I was curious: Over the years, when religion enters the debate over abortion, the focus has been on the Catholic and Evangelical communities, so what was the Jewish take? When I asked, I was told that one of the tenants of Jewish religious doctrine is that life begins at birth. Consequently, a ban on abortion would establish Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity as a state-sanctioned religion, thereby violating the Establishment Clause.
At this point, I wondered: Where exactly is the line between state-sanctioned religion, on the one hand, and legislation shaped in a melting pot of values, some of which reflects moral convictions shaped by religion? Pluralism means different values will always enter the mix: some shaped by parents; others shaped by experience; and still others shaped by religious teachings.
I also wondered why the adherents to Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity couldn’t assert the identical Establishment Clause argument if the Jewish position were to prevail. In other words, the Jewish position is just as problematic as the one held by the Catholics and Evangelicals if the adoption of either position is viewed as stated-sponsored religion.
What had originally been billed as a two-hour session lasted just shy of 30 minutes. About 40 people were in attendance. As usual when turnout is lackluster, I always wonder whether the rally is counterproductive. In my mind, a poor turnout undercuts the message: People don’t care all that much about the issue. Sometimes the better course is not to assemble.
I then headed outside to the Capitol entrance, where 20 or so abortion-rights activists were holding vigil. After about 45 minutes I left, deciding to explore the downtown area. Later in the day I returned. The size of the group had not changed.
People Listening to a Speech During the Jewish Day of Action on Reproductive Rights
Rabbi Jordana Chernow-Reader Addresses the Importance of Abortion Rights
One of the Speakers at the Jewish Day of Action on Reproductive Rights
People Listening to Rabbi Jordana Chernow-Reader
A Hug Was Apparently in Order
An Apparent Doctor Being Interviewed After the Jewish Day of Action Wrapped Up
Picking Up a Placard
Abortion-Rights Protesters Outside the Capitol Mid-Morning
Abortion-Rights Activists Displaying Their Signs
Saturday. As events unfolded Friday, I thought that Saturday might be a very visual day. One of the reporters who I had contacted apologized for leading me astray when she had told me that no events were scheduled for Saturday. No apology was necessary. Plans had changed; the Senate would now vote on the bill Saturday. We agreed that increased the likelihood of a large turnout. Saturday, I was on site from 8:30 AM to 11 AM. When I arrived, there were no demonstrators at the main entrance.
I waited inside, as abortion-rights activists slowly made their way to the second and third levels, lining up along the railing forming the open atrium. Another group assembled outside the narrow lobby fronting the Senate chambers. Like the House, the front of the Senate chambers had large interior windows permitting the public and the legislators to see each other.
I estimate that as the debate began, no more than 200 or so abortion-rights activists were inside the building. Given the stakes, this struck me as a rather poor turnout. After I left, those numbers might have grown, but I doubt significantly: I saw no photographs in the newspapers or video from the television coverage clearly indicating that the hordes came later. Casey Smith of the Indiana Capital Chronicle put the number in the “hundreds.” I take that to mean under 500. In my own experience, “several hundred” means 300 or 400; “over 500” means a large crowd but nowhere close to a 1,000; and “somewhere around a 1,000” means between 800 to 1,000. I did watch one television web report that at times showed the atrium more densely packed, but the camera angles were cropped tight, to I couldn’t tell if attendance grew after I left or if it just looked that way. As noted, the reports consistently placed the number in the hundreds.
Despite the relatively anemic turnout, those who did arrive were enthusiastic and very loud. The cavernous, marble-lined interior is quite the echo chamber, even if the reverberation obscures the words. Through my 32 DB earplugs, one of the chants became, “Our right to rock and roll.”
I left the Capitol at 11:00 AM, but took a look from two blocks away around noon. No one appeared to be standing outside the entrance, which I found surprising. While I understand the appeal of having large numbers of vocal activists inside, if I were an organizer, I would want a street presence to remind the public of what was happening inside the building.
Even more surprising, the pro-life community remained on the sidelines. As it turns out, there was a split on the Republican side of the aisle. Some senators wanted a total ban, while others favored exceptions for rape and incest. The divide was so sharp that it threatened passage of the bill, which might have meant no legislative action during the special session. Had I been on the pro-life side, I would have wanted to remind the Senate Republicans that I was literally watching.
Abortion-Rights Protestors on the Third Floor of the Capitol
Chanting Loudly
Displaying the Green
Abortion-Rights Activists Standing Outside the Indiana Senate Chambers
Using a Placard as a Megaphone
Passionately Reading Her Speech Off an iPhone
Abortion-Rights Activists Lining the Second Floor Atrium
Standing for Abortion Rights
Arranging the Signs Shortly Before 11:00 AM
The Paradox. I was speaking with one woman on Friday outside the Capitol. My impression is that we agreed: Like it or not, the ban would be enacted because the Republicans control the machinery of government. So I asked, “Why bother protesting if it is lost cause?” To paraphrase her response, “If you don’t at least try, nothing will ever change.” I agree with what I might characterize as her “irrational” response. You can’t win, but not to try is to succumb to despair. As the Reverend Jesse Jackson has long said, “Keep hope alive,” because the alternative is a dour outlook on life.
I certainly gained insight into why activists take on what are often Sisyphean tasks during my two days in Indianapolis. When the odds are heavily weighted against them, their efforts are more about rekindling their own spirits than achieving the immediate change they seek—many will vocally disagree with my view, but that does not make it incorrect. The act of protest is directed inwards rather than outwards when the odds are heavily stacked against you. Presumably Sisyphus had hope, and for all we know, he eventually got that stone up the hill. Perhaps those on the side of abortion rights should take an admiring look at their pro-choice opponents, who pushed the stone up the hill for 50 years.
The abortion-rights activists will undoubtedly argue that this is not a 50-year struggle because somewhere around two-thirds of Indiana’s citizens support abortion rights. That relatively high percentage adds teeth to the slogan, “Vote Them Out.” The activists may be proven correct, but the critical question will be whether a single issue will drive the votes.
Driving down to Indianapolis on backroads, I was struck by all the farm fields and small communities. Given that Mike Pence was Indiana’s governor, I suspect the state is very conservative. Will the voters in the areas outside of the major population centers vote their representatives out over a single issue? Only time will tell.
The Police. As is often the case, I found the police to be highly professional and courteous. One woman was a bit surprised when an officer asked her move off the Capitol steps. She was holding a sign attached to a ruler-like handle. This, according to the police officer, could be used as a weapon, so she would have to stand on the sidewalk. I had seen the police in Houston make a similar request to members of the Proud Boys. At one point an Indiana police officer said they had to apply the rules to all demonstrators, regardless of viewpoint.
In another case, I witnessed a police officer and a demonstrator engaged in a friendly interaction. The protester was trying to get him to take sides, and paraphrasing, he responded, “At home I have my opinions, but here I don’t take sides.”
Interestingly, the police apparently expected a larger turnout on Friday than on Saturday. On Friday, they had a number of golf-cart-like vehicles to facilitate a rapid response, as well as several police cars parked across from the Capitol’s entrance Those weren’t there on Saturday, but there was a much greater police presence inside the building.
Democracy. As is typically the case, I left with a good feeling about our democracy. Indiana rightly views the statehouse as a public forum, but state officials go a bit further than just allowing people to congregate in the halls. It is possible to reserve tables so that a group can have meeting space. One group had somewhere between five and 10 boxes of pizza stacked on a table, so the State recognizes the need for food during a long day on the picket line. It also provides audio equipment, lecterns, and chairs for groups who want to assemble for speeches. I didn’t see those sorts of accomodations when I visited the Kremlin in Russia, or the Great Hall in China.
And One for the Road
Copyright 2022, Jack B. Siegel. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Alter, Copy, Display, Distribute, Download, Duplicate, or Reproduce Without the Prior Written Consent of the Copyright Holder.
