Seventh Circuit dumps ban on abortion info for minors

Indiana's "aid-or-assist" statute prohibits doctors and abortion providers from sharing information about out-of-state abortions with minors without parental consent or court approval.CHICAGO (CN) — A Seventh Circuit panel on Tuesday ruled an Indiana law that prevents physicians from providing abortion information to minors violates the First Amendment.“This appeal is the latest chapter in a long case that has straddled a revolution in the constitutional law relating to terminations of pregnancies,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote in the panel’s majority opinion.Planned Parenthood challenged Indiana’s “aid-or-assist" statute before it took effect in 2017. The law prohibits doctors and abortion providers from sharing information about out-of-state abortions with minors without parental consent or court approval. It was signed before Indiana enacted its near-total abortion ban and before the landmark Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but it was never enforced due to a lower court injunction.Although Planned Parenthood can no longer perform abortions in Indiana, the organization maintained during arguments before the Seventh Circuit panel in 2025 that the “aid-or-assist” statute is both a content and a viewpoint-based speech restriction.“If Planned Parenthood hands a young person a piece of paper with a list of Illinois-based healthcare providers where the patient can get prenatal care, it violates no law,” Gavin Rose, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, wrote in the appellee’s brief. “Change the words on the paper to a list of Illinois-based healthcare providers that offer abortion care, and Planned Parenthood has violated the law. That is the essence of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination.”The Seventh Circuit panel ultimately agreed. Hamilton noted in the panel’s majority opinion that if Planned Parenthood were to share information with pregnant minors about out-of-state care for prenatal care or sexually transmitted infections, the aid-or-assist law is no obstacle. But if they provide information or referrals about abortion, the statute is triggered.“The aid-or-assist law is not viewpoint-neutral. It prohibits speech to the extent that it aids an unemancipated minor in obtaining an abortion without specific parental consent,” Hamilton wrote in the 46-page opinion. “In doing so, the statute as applied to plaintiff prohibits speech of the view that an unemancipated minor would benefit, for a variety of reasons, from the information or referrals shared, while permitting speech with the opposite viewpoint.”“[T]he aid-or-assist law thus allows conversations on the subject of abortion but forbids a certain point of view,” the Barack Obama appointee continued.Hamilton did note, however, that speech aiding an “unemancipated minor in obtaining an illegal abortion in Indiana would constitute speech integral to criminal conduct, violating Indiana’s near-total abortion ban.”Hamilton also noted that the panel’s analysis was consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a similar Idaho law.In that case, a split appellate panel reversed a trial judge’s finding that the law was too vague for enforcement. However, the entire panel agreed that the “recruitment” provision of the law — which made it a crime to provide a minor with persuasive encouragement to seek an abortion — was barred by the First Amendment.Jenna Lorence, a deputy solicitor general with the state of Indiana, argued before the Seventh Circuit panel in 2025 that the law regulates Planned Parenthood’s conduct, not what information it shares.“Just because defendants may approve of plaintiff’s speech when consent requirements have been met does not ’transform a facially content-based law into one that is content neutral,’” Hamilton wrote in the panel’s opinion.In an eight-page concurring opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote that Indiana has the authority to regulate this sort of speech and a compelling interest in doing so.“In my respectful view, however, today’s decision reaches this conclusion on reasoning that undervalues Indiana’s compelling interest in keeping parents involved in every stage of a minor’s decision about whether to get an abortion,” the Donald Trump appointee wrote. “The majority’s narrow tailoring analysis also misses the mark by finding too much fault with the means Indiana chose to ensure parental involvement in such a grave and consequential decision.”U.S. Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, joined Hamilton and Scudder on the panel’s opinion.Representatives for Planned Parenthood and Indiana did not respond to requests for comment as of publication.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads