A seemingly mundane bill to expand access to birth control has become the latest battleground for anti-abortion advocates who have previously lobbied for lawmakers to conflate some forms of contraception with abortion.
As originally written, House Bill 1426 by Rep. Rita Fleming, D-Jeffersonville, would have required hospitals to offer long-acting reversible contraceptives — IUDs and arm implants — to Medicaid-covered women after they give birth. The legislation is meant to help women in vulnerable situations and potentially save the state billions of Medicaid dollars spent on unintended pregnancies.
But now the bill is drawing criticism from some Democrats and medical professionals after an anti-abortion group successfully lobbied legislators to exclude IUDs from the bill — falsely claiming the birth control devices cause abortions. IUDs would still be covered by Medicaid, but hospitals would not be required to offer them.
The bill sailed through the House with widespread, bipartisan support, but some Senate Democrats are now raising concerns that the legislation is actually a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
“This is clawing back choices for women,” Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, said during a Senate Health and Provider Services Committee meeting Wednesday, Feb. 21. “My concern is we’re going to use (HB) 1426 going forward to say Medicaid will not cover IUDs.”
Bill co-author Rep. Cindy Ledbetter, R-Evansville, testified that IUDs were written out of the bill because of concerns from Indiana Right to Life. The organization, on the frontlines of the state’s recent near-total abortion ban, said IUDs were a form of abortion, Ledbetter said.
“That is why it was removed from this,” Ledbetter told the committee. “Because we are a strong pro-life state.”
Jodi Smith, a lobbyist for Indiana Right to Life, said the group has not publicly testified for or against the bill this year. But she said the group’s representatives met with lawmakers about an identical bill last year.
“They were very willing to make concessions on anything that could be construed as an (abortion drug) because their bill was not about abortion,” Smith said.
Fleming, through a spokesperson, said she did not meet with the group.
Smith, meanwhile, cited medically unsound claims that IUDs are a form of abortion. In truth, IUDs prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg, either through a copper implant or the release of hormones. But that fact hasn’t stopped anti-abortion groups — and some Republican lawmakers around the country — from moving toward what many fear is next in Indiana: banning certain forms of birth control.
“I think the way this is happening is very reminiscent of how things played out for abortion access,” Dr. Caroline Rouse, an OB-GYN who teaches at the Indiana University School of Medicine, told Mirror Indy. “Their playbook for eliminating reproductive choice is not subtle.”
She is a board member for the Good Trouble Coalition, a health care advocacy group that originally supported the bill before lawmakers amended it.
“While some will argue some access is better than no access, we are concerned about the precedent this bill sets,” said Dr. Gabriel Bosslet, an associate professor of clinical medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and a coalition member, during the committee meeting. “If hospitals only have to stock the subdermal implant, they will not stock IUDs.”
Gabriel Bosslet, a pulmonary doctor, testifies against House Bill 1426 on behalf of The Good Trouble Coalition. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy 
Rep. Rita Fleming (left) discusses House Bill 1426 with the committee. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy 
Sen. Sue Glick talks about House Bill 1426. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy 
Sen. Shelli Yoder discusses House Bill 1426. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy 
Darla Berry, a certified nurse midwife, testifies in support of House Bill 1426. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy 
Carrie Rouse, an OB-GYN, testifies against House Bill 1426 on behalf of The Good Trouble Coalition. Credit: Jenna Watson / Mirror Indy
“That’s not true,” Fleming, the Democratic author of the bill, said from her seat while shaking her head.
Fleming, a retired OB-GYN, said the bill would give patients access to long-term contraception without requiring them to return for another doctor’s visit. It would also reduce Indiana’s high infant and maternal mortality rate, she said, by protecting women from risks associated with becoming pregnant again shortly after giving birth.
Subdermal implants are the best method, Fleming asserted, because IUDs can sometimes fall out postpartum. But they’d still be available to women who asked for them — just not offered outright like the arm implants.
Responding to Yoder’s comments that the amended bill would restrict choices for women, Fleming said that is a “gross misrepresentation of this bill.”
“This is not a discriminatory practice,” Fleming said. “You are still allowed to stock, you are still allowed to offer, you are still allowed to insert, implant whatever plan of birth control the provider and the doctor have agreed to.”
Fleming’s bill was backed by Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, who was instrumental in passing Indiana’s near-total abortion ban in 2022.
“This is going to be a boon, we believe, to some of these young mothers who are simply having too many children in too short a span of time,” Glick said. “Just give them a little breathing room.”
The committee voted 8-2 to send the bill to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Two lone Democrats, Sen. Yoder and Sen. J.D. Ford, D-Indianapolis, voted against it.
This article has been updated to note that Fleming said she did not meet with Indiana Right to Life.
Mirror Indy reporter Mary Claire Molloy covers health. Reach her at maryclaire.molloy@mirrorindy.org. Follow her on X @mcmolloy7.
Mirror Indy reporter Peter Blanchard covers local government. Reach him at 317-605-4836 or peter.blanchard@mirrorindy.org. Follow him on X @peterlblanchard.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
