Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

Summary

Indiana law altered the manner in which abortion providers may dispose of fetal remains. Among other changes, it excluded fetal remains from the definition of infectious and pathological waste, Indiana Code Sections 16−41−16−4(d), 16−41−16−5, thereby preventing incineration of fetal remains along with surgical byproducts. It also authorized simultaneous cremation of fetal remains, Section 16−34−3−4(a), which Indiana does not generally allow for human remains, Section 23−14−31−39(a). The law did not affect a woman's right under existing law "to determine the final disposition of the aborted fetus." Section 16−34−3−2(a). Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. litigated this case on the assumption that the law does not implicate a fundamental right and is therefore subject only to ordinary rational basis review. To survive under that standard, a state law need only be "rationally related to legitimate government interests." The Seventh Circuit found Indiana's disposition law invalid even under this deferential test. It first held that Indiana's stated interest in "the 'humane and dignified disposal of human remains'" was "not... legitimate." It also held that even if Indiana's stated interest were legitimate, "it [could not] identify a rational relationship" between that interest and "the law as written," because the law preserves a woman's right to dispose of fetal remains however she wishes and allows for simultaneous cremation.

Reversed. A State has a "legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains." Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc. Here, the Court held that the Seventh Circuit clearly erred in failing to recognize the state interest as a permissible basis for Indiana's disposition law. See Armour v. Indianapolis. The only remaining question, then, was whether Indiana's law was rationally related to the State's interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. This Court concluded that it was, even if it was not perfectly tailored to that end. Therefore, the Court upheld Indiana's law under rational basis review. "We reiterate that, in challenging this provision, respondents have never argued that Indiana's law imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. This case, as litigated, therefore does not implicate our cases applying the undue burden test to abortion regulations."

— Silva Demirjian