Sen. Tyler Johnson, R-Leo, said his bill restricting access to abortion-inducing drugs would protect the lives of women and children. (Photo/Pexels.com)
This story was originally published by TheStatehouseFile.com.
By Chloe White
TheStatehouseFile.com
January 29, 2026
As winter weather slowed activity at the Statehouse this week, debate over abortion policy did not, with senators arguing over legislation that would further reshape Indiana law.
Supporters of Senate Bill 236 believe it will protect the lives of women and children, but opponents think the legislation would limit health care.
Although Indiana passed a near total abortion ban in 2022, authors of SB 236—Sens. Tyler Johnson, R-Leo, and Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne—believe that the legislation is needed to stop the flow of abortion-inducing drugs into the state.
“Senate Bill 236 is a vital measure to protect the sanctity of life in Indiana,” said Johnson. “At its core, the bill clarifies and strengthens our state’s commitment to the unborn by establishing meaningful accountability for those who seek to undermine that commitment.”
The proposed legislation would change how abortions and abortion drugs are legally defined, preventing medications from being shipped into Indiana.
Most notably, the legislation would create a private right of action, allowing for wrongful death lawsuits, or a qui tam provision. According to Johnson, this measure would allow any person to bring a wrongful death suit to those who manufacture, distribute, mail, transport, prescribe or provide abortion-inducing drugs in violation of the law.
Under the bill, if a qui tam relator, or private individual bringing the lawsuit, prevails, the court must award at least $100,000 per violation, along with court costs and attorney fees.
Supporters of the bill say the legislation closes loopholes in Indiana law by tightening regulations on abortion-inducing drugs and preventing them from being mailed into the state by nonmedical providers. Democrats argue the bill is a sweeping prohibition of existing law and could allow private citizens to file lawsuits against Hoosier women they believe sought an illegal abortion.
Five days after it was first discussed in committee, SB 236 passed 35-10 along party lines in the Senate on Tuesday. Now, the bill heads to the Indiana House Public Health committee for its first reading.
In committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee discussed SB 236 on Jan. 21, when it added an amendment regarding terminated pregnancy report (TPR) privacy by bill author Johnson.
A TPR is a required document submitted by physicians to a state’s health department following an abortion. The report contains data about the patient, pregnancy and procedure.
When first introduced, the bill would have made these reports requestable by the public, allowing anyone to see general information about an abortive procedure. The amended bill reshapes the legislation, removing language that would make TPRs publicly accessible information.
Currently, physicians who perform abortive services share TPR information with the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) under state code § 16-34-2. With the revision, IDOH will be required to send all TPRs to the office of Investigator General Jared Prentice while keeping the reports inaccessible to the public.
“We essentially are simplifying it to say that those reports are private, so that they are not publicly disclosable, and that the reports will be sent directly to the Office of Inspector General, so those are the big changes that occur in the amendment,” Johnson told the committee.
Notably, this amendment would not only change state code but directly contrast Attorney General Todd Rokita’s unchanging opinion that a TPR should not be a protected record and that all reports should be evaluated to determine state “compliance.”
Second reading in the Senate
During the bill’s second reading in the Senate on Monday, six amendments were proposed for the 44-page bill. Five, authored by Democrats, failed.
Throughout the debate on SB 236, Democrats argued that the bill does not prevent abortions before they occur but instead imposes civil penalties after abortion-inducing drugs have been distributed or used.
Amendment 2, proposed by Sen. Andrea Hunley, D-Indianapolis, would have given immunity to Hoosier women living near border states who seek abortive care across state lines. The proposed addition would have protected both the provider and the patient from legal action in the event that abortion-related medications are legally prescribed or received as part of out-of-state care.
“What happens if the person gets their medication legally prescribed over the border, … drives home, and they’re in possession of a drug, what do we do?” said Hunley.
Amendment 3, also authored by Hunley, would have provided legal immunity to immediate family members of a pregnant woman seeking an abortion. An example of this immunity could be a family member driving a pregnant woman seeking an abortion across state lines to receive care.
“In my personal experience as a school leader, I’ve had young people who do not yet have the ability to have a driver’s license who have needed these medications,” said Hunley. “I’m wondering what happens if their parent drives them just across the border to their doctor’s appointment, and the parent is the one that’s in possession of the medicine.”
“All this [amendment] does is just offer that layer of protection to folks who are obtaining these drugs legally.”
Amendment 4, written by Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, would have removed all qui tam language in the bill. She explained that under the bill’s current measures, the state would have no involvement in a private lawsuit, turning law enforcement over to the public.
“This language in the bill does not increase penalties or improve enforcement by the state, it outsources enforcement to private citizens. Any person can file a qui tam action against someone who allegedly violated or even intends to violate the law,” said Yoder. “That is not careful law enforcement, that is an invitation to speculation, fishing expeditions and politically motivated lawsuits.”
Amendment 6, proposed by Johnson, was the only rewrite to pass, striking specific language within the bill pertaining to public TPR reports. The amendment removed roughly four pages of the bill but most notably eliminated the following clause: “A report made under this section is not confidential and is a public record.”
In the current version of the bill, that language has been removed, effectively making all reports private information but adding a stipulation that reports will be sent to the inspector general’s office.
Third reading in the Senate
In one final push to stop the legislation, Senate Democrats provided further testimony highlighting their concerns with the bill. Yoder read a numbered list of what she described as the dangers of the bill.
“I rise to oppose Senate Bill 236 on third reading, not because Hoosiers don’t care deeply about life and conscience but because this bill is written in a way that is extreme, legally reckless, and structurally designed to inflame conflict rather than to produce careful governance,” she said.
“If Indiana is such a pro-life state, why are we actually penalizing somebody after they’ve already shipped or provided an abortion-inducing drug,” asked Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis.
Across the aisle, however, the authors of the bill reaffirmed their belief that the legislation would help Hoosier women and children.
No other Republicans spoke on the matter.
“Senate Bill 236 is a vital measure to protect the sanctity of life in Indiana,” said Johnson. “At its core, the bill clarifies and strengthens our state’s commitment to the unborn by establishing meaningful accountability for those who seek to undermine that commitment.”
Brown agreed that the legislation would save lives.
“So now, what we’ve had to do post-Dobbs, is double down. They are mailing in these pills, babies are dying, and sometimes women are,” Brown said, referring to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion. Just a month later, Indiana called a special session that all but banned abortion in the state.
“Women are dying because of serious complications,” said Brown.
According to the FDA, as of Dec. 31, 2024, there had been 36 reported deaths from the abortive drug mifepristone since it was approved in 2000.
Reactions
Indiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion nonprofit, released a statement on Tuesday detailing its support for the legislation.
“We fully support SB 236 because it protects the lives of unborn babies and their mothers from the dangers of abortion-pill traffickers. These abortion enthusiasts exploit loopholes in Indiana law and are currently unaccountable for ending the lives of unborn babies, and putting pregnant mothers at risk of severe complications and death,” said IRTL President Mike Fichter.
Opponents of the legislation, including the Indiana Reproductive Health and Access Coalition (IRHAC), criticized lawmakers for ignoring the concerns they heard in testimony.
“SB 236 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week despite hours of testimony reflecting widespread concern about the bill’s implementation and its impact on privacy, health care clinicians, and access to essential reproductive health care,” it said in a statement.
“Even with cosmetic amendments, SB 236 remains a sweeping pregnancy policing scheme that further erodes access to reproductive health care in Indiana. Hoosiers should not be misled by these surface-level revisions.”
Within the IRHAC press release, Haley Bougher, state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, Danielle Drake, advocacy manager at the ACLU of Indiana, and others spoke on the bill.
“This is pregnancy policing at its most extreme,” said Bougher. “SB 236 replaces trust in medical care with fear, surveillance, and punishment. It will deter people from seeking care and force health care clinicians to practice under constant threat.”
“This is a thinly veiled attempt to scare people away from accessing health care by deputizing and financially incentivizing private citizens to police their own communities. We see right through it. Hoosiers deserve better, and this bill will cause real harm to pregnant people and the people who care for them,” said Drake. “We urge Indiana lawmakers to reject this bill and protect the dignity, safety, and health of Hoosiers.”
Chloe White is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news site powered by Franklin College journalism students.
