In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 20-2407 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR, et al., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:18-cv-01219 — Richard L. Young, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED JANUARY 12, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2021 

____________________ 

Before EASTERBROOK, WOOD, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. 

ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. This appeal queries whether an Indiana statute that requires medical providers to report complications “arising from” abortions to the state is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Although the statute has some ambiguity, we conclude that Planned Parenthood has not shown 

that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face in this preenforcement challenge. 
2 No. 20-2407

I. Background

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. 

(“Planned Parenthood”) filed this suit on April 23, 2018 to 

challenge Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 340, which the 

governor signed into law on March 25, 2018. The Complaint 

took aim at two provisions of Enrolled Act No. 340—the Complications Statute and the Inspection Statute. The Complications Statute, Indiana Code § 16-34-2-4.7, required physicians 

to report to the state “any adverse physical or psychological 

condition arising from the induction or performance of an 

abortion.” The Statute then provided a list of twenty-six conditions that the state considered reportable conditions. The 

word “including” preceded the conditions list, seemingly indicating that the list of twenty-six conditions was illustrative 

rather than exhaustive. The Inspection Statute, Indiana Code 

§ 16-21-2-2.6, required annual inspection of abortion providers’ facilities, even though other kinds of healthcare facilities 

are inspected less frequently. Planned Parenthood sued Indiana’s Health Department Commissioner and several county 

prosecutors (collectively, “the Defendants”) seeking a declaration that the two Statutes were unconstitutional and a permanent injunction enjoining the Statutes’ enforcement. 

In May 2018, Planned Parenthood moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Complications Statute. The district court held a hearing on the motion 

in June, and then granted Planned Parenthood’s motion and 

preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the Complications 

Statute as unconstitutionally vague. 

In its order granting Planned Parenthood’s motion, the

court found that there was constitutionally intolerable overlap between “normal” side effects of abortions and 
No. 20-2407 3

“complications” that would trigger the reporting requirement. As a result, the Statute “fail[ed] to inform [Plaintiffs of] 

what conduct is prohibited.” The district court was concerned 

that physicians would “run the risk of being found ... to be 

out of compliance with their statutory responsibilities” (and 

thereby risking time in prison and their medical licenses) for 

failing to report “every ‘adverse physical or psychological 

condition’ for which patients seek treatment as a reportable 

condition, no matter how routine, minor, and expected.” The 

district court found the Complications Statute’s illustrative 

list of conditions to be “so broad or vague that they do not 

remedy the uncertainty of the general definition of ‘abortion 

complication.’”

In response, Indiana amended the Complications Statute. 

In the 2019 version, the legislature eliminated the “including” 

language that had previously indicated that the list was illustrative, as opposed to exhaustive. So, the 2019 version requires doctors to report only those conditions included on the 

Statute’s list. As amended, the Complications Statute now requires physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics to report 

abortion complications to the state that meet the following 

statutory definition: 

(a) As used in this section, “abortion complication” 

means only the following physical or psychological 

conditions arising from the induction or performance 

of an abortion:

(1) Uterine perforation.

(2) Cervical laceration.

(3) Infection.
4 No. 20-2407

(4) Vaginal bleeding that qualifies as a Grade 2 or 

higher adverse event according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

(5) Pulmonary embolism.

(6) Deep vein thrombosis.

(7) Failure to terminate the pregnancy.

(8) Incomplete abortion (retained tissue).

(9) Pelvic inflammatory disease.

(10) Missed ectopic pregnancy.

(11) Cardiac arrest.

(12) Respiratory arrest.

(13) Renal failure.

(14) Shock.

(15) Amniotic fluid embolism.

(16) Coma.

(17) Placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies.

(18) Pre-term delivery in subsequent pregnancies.

(19) Free fluid in the abdomen.

(20) Hemolytic reaction due to the administration of 

ABO-incompatible blood or blood products.

(21) Hypoglycemia occurring while the patient is being 

treated at the abortion facility.

(22) Allergic reaction to anesthesia or abortion inducing drugs.
No. 20-2407 5 

(23) Psychological complications, including depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, and sleeping disorders.

(24) Death.

(25) Any other adverse event as defined by criteria provided in the Food and Drug Administration Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Ind. Code § 16-34-2-4.7(a). 

Licensed physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics are 

subject to the Complications Statute and must submit to the 

state a complications report detailing the following information: the date the patient presented for treatment for the 

abortion complication; the patient’s age, race, and county and 

state of residence; the type and date of the patient’s abortion; 

the name of the facility where the patient had the abortion; 

details about any medications prescribed to the patient to facilitate the abortion; lists of any complications and the treatment provided; lists of any complications diagnosed or 

treated at follow-up visits; the dates of all follow-up visits; a 

statement regarding whether the complication was previously managed by the abortion provider or the abortion provider’s required back-up physician; and a statement regarding whether the patient’s visit to treat the complications was 

the original visit or a follow-up visit. Id. §§ 16-34-2-4.7(b, e). 

The Statute imposes criminal penalties for failing to comply. “Each failure to report an abortion complication as required under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.” Id. § 16-

34-2-4.7(j). In Indiana, Class B misdemeanors are punishable 

by up to six months in prison and $1,000 in fines. Id. § 35-50-

3-3. The Indiana Medical Licensing Board may also discipline 

physicians for failing to comply. See id. § 25-1-9-4(a)(3). 
6 No. 20-2407

After the 2019 amendment, Planned Parenthood rejected

Indiana’s contention that the amendment rendered the Complications Statute constitutional. The parties therefore proceeded to brief cross motions for summary judgment. 

The district court held that the Complications Statute is 

unconstitutionally vague and granted Planned Parenthood’s 

motion as to the Complications Statute. The district court, 

however, upheld the constitutionality of the Inspection Statute. The court entered final judgment accordingly. On 

Planned Parenthood’s motion, the district court amended its 

final judgment to reflect the inclusion of a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Complications Statute, as 

amended. 

Defendants now appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Planned Parenthood with respect to the 

Complications Statute. Planned Parenthood has not appealed 

the district court’s decision with respect to the Inspection Statute. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district 

court’s entry of summary judgment and remand for further 

proceedings. 

II. Discussion 

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment 

de novo. Cobb v. Aramark Corr. Servs., LLC, 937 F.3d 1037, 1039 

(7th Cir. 2019). “When reviewing cross-motions for summary 

judgment, ‘all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the 

party against whom the motion at issue was made.’” Valenti v. 

Lawson, 889 F.3d 427, 429 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Tripp v. 

Scholz, 872 F.3d 857, 862 (7th Cir. 2017)). The movant is entitled to summary judgment when there is “no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment 
No. 20-2407 7 

as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Dunn v. Menard, Inc., 880 F.3d 

899, 905 (7th Cir. 2018)).

The Supreme Court has long held that overly vague laws 

are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., Connally v. Gen. Const. 

Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Succinctly, “[i]n our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.” United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019). The void-for-vagueness doctrine rests on the “twin constitutional pillars of due process 

and separation of powers.” Id. at 2325; Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 

S. Ct. 1204, 1212 (2018). 

Only the people’s elected representatives in the legislature are authorized to make an act a crime. Vague 

statutes threaten to hand responsibility for defining 

crimes to relatively unaccountable police, prosecutors, 

and judges, eroding the people’s ability to oversee the 

creation of the laws they are expected to abide.

Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2325 (internal quotations and citations 

omitted); see also Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1212 (the vagueness doctrine is a “corollary of the separation of powers [doctrine]”). 

In Connally, the Court considered the constitutionality of

an Oklahoma statute requiring the state to pay its employees 

“not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed.” Connally, 269 U.S. at 388. 

The Court explained that “a statute which either forbids or 

requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of 

common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning 

and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due 

process of law.” Connally, 269 U.S. at 391. “[T]he terms of a 

penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently 
8 No. 20-2407

explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on 

their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions 

of fair play and the settled rules of law.” Id. “The citizen cannot be held to answer charges based upon penal statutes 

whose mandates are so uncertain that they will reasonably 

admit of different constructions. ... The crime, ... must be so 

clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently 

choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.” Id. at 393. The Court concluded that the Oklahoma minimum wage law was too indefinite in two respects: the phrase 

“current rate of wages” and the term “locality” created a 

“double uncertainty” that was “fatal to [the law’s] validity as 

a criminal statute.” Id. 

In 1972, the Court reiterated that the Constitution requires 

that legislatures draft criminal statutes with sufficient precision to inform persons of “common intelligence” of a law’s

requirements and to avoid arbitrary enforcement of the statute. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972). 

There, the Court invalidated Florida’s public vagrancy law as 

unconstitutionally vague, because it “failed[ed] to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated 

conduct is forbidden by the statute” and because it “encourage[d] arbitrary and erratic” enforcement. Id. (citing United 

States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954); Thornhill v. Alabama, 

310 U.S. 88 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937)).

More recently, the Court has abided by the Papachristou 

formula in a trilogy of as-applied challenges to federal criminal laws that imposed criminal liability based on the phrases 

“crime of violence” and “violent felony.” See Davis, 139 S. Ct. 

at 2324; Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1212; Johnson v. United States, 576 
No. 20-2407 9 

U.S. 591, 595 (2015). In Johnson, the Court invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 

which defined “violent felonies” to include crimes involving 

“conduct” presenting “a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” because it failed both prongs set out by Papachristou. See Johnson, 576 U.S. at 594–95; 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The “Government violates [the Fifth 

Amendment’s Due Process Clause] by taking away someone’s life, liberty, or property under a criminal law so vague 

that it fails to [1] give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or [2] so standardless that it invites arbitrary 

enforcement.” Johnson, 576 U.S. at 595 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357–58 (1983)). Moreover, the Court rejected 

any defense of ACCA’s residual clause based on the existence 

of some crimes that would clearly fall within its scope: 

[O]ur holdings squarely contradict the theory that a 

vague provision is constitutional merely because there 

is some conduct that clearly falls within the provision’s 

grasp. For instance, we have deemed a law prohibiting 

grocers from charging an “unjust or unreasonable 

rate” void for vagueness—even though charging 

someone a thousand dollars for a pound of sugar 

would surely be unjust and unreasonable. 

Johnson, 576 U.S. at 602 (citing United States v. L. Cohen Grocery 

Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89 (1921); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 

(1971)). 

Three years later, the Court explained in Dimaya that the 

void-for-vagueness doctrine “guarantees that ordinary people have ‘fair notice’ of the conduct a statute proscribes [and] 

guards against arbitrary or discriminatory law enforcement 

by insisting that a statute provide standards to govern the 
10 No. 20-2407

actions of police officers, prosecutors, juries, and judges.” Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. at 1212 (citing Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 162; 

Lawson, 461 U.S. at 357–58). Accordingly, the Court found the 

statutory definition of a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C.

§ 16 was unconstitutionally vague, because it had the “same 

two features [as in Johnson] that conspired to make ACCA’s 

residual clause unconstitutionally vague.” Id. at 1216. 

Finally, in 2019, the Court struck down 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause as vague in United States v. Davis. 139 S. Ct. at 2324. Like the “crime of violence” definitions 

at issue in Johnson and Dimaya, the residual clause of Section 

924(c) penalized the use of a firearm during the commission 

of a crime of violence, defined as involving “a substantial risk 

that physical force against the person or property of another 

may be used in the course of committing the offense.” Davis, 

139 S. Ct. at 2323–24. As mentioned above, the Court emphasized that the vagueness doctrine “rests on the twin constitutional pillars of due process and separation of powers.” Id. at 

2325.

We recently echoed these principles in United States v. 

Cook, 970 F.3d 866, 872–73 (7th Cir. 2020).

The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a criminal statute define an offense with sufficient clarity that 

an ordinary person has fair notice of what conduct is 

prohibited and so as to avoid arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. “What renders a statute vague is not 

the possibility that it will sometimes be difficult to determine whether the incriminating fact it establishes 

has been proved; but rather the indeterminacy of precisely what that fact is.” 
No. 20-2407 11 

Id. (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 306 (2008); 

citing Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 402–03 (2010); 

United States v. Sylla, 790 F.3d 772, 774–75 (7th Cir. 2015)). 

A. Notice 

Here, several aspects of the Complications Statute give us 

some pause, particularly given the criminal penalties (including jail time) imposed for each violation of the Statute. See Vill. 

of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 

498–99 (1982) (noting the Supreme Court’s “greater tolerance 

of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less 

severe.”); Whatley v. Zatecky, 833 F.3d 762, 777 (7th Cir. 2016) 

(same); Copeland v. Vance, 893 F.3d 101, 114 (2d Cir. 2018) 

(“The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates ... 

depends in part on the nature of the enactment.”) (internal 

quotations omitted). 

First, although we are aware of no other case holding the 

phrase “arising from” to be unconstitutionally vague, we 

acknowledge the district court’s concern that the Statute is 

“not clear as to the extent to which a complication must be 

caused by the abortion itself.” The Statute requires doctors to 

report the incidence of any one of the twenty-five listed conditions “arising from” an abortion, but the Statute does not 

give objective guidance regarding the temporal, spatial, or 

causal relationship between the abortion and the complication. Cf. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 149 (2007) (discussing the objective, anatomical landmarks specified by a federal 

abortion regulation that saved that regulation from being 

struck down as void). 
12 No. 20-2407

Moreover, although several other states do impose abortion-complication reporting requirements on doctors, Indiana’s broad formulation of its Complications Statute is unusual among peer statutes. First, not all reporting statutes impose criminal penalties on violators. See, e.g., 18 Pa. Stat. and 

Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3214(i)(1) (imposing civil liability on doctors who fail to file the required report).1 Furthermore, most 

of the other abortion-complication reporting statutes cited by 

Defendants use more specific language to guide doctors about 

the causal relationship required between the abortion and any

complications. For example, Michigan’s complications-reporting law provides that the complication must be the primary, secondary, or tertiary result of an abortion. See e.g., Mich. 

Comp. Laws Ann. § 3.2837.2 And besides using a more specific causation standard, the vast majority of complication-reporting statutes explicitly include some kind of “reasonable 

medical judgment” standard. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 

1 See also Minn. Stat. Ann. § 145.4132 (delegating to the health commissioner the imposition of any penalties for violating the reporting requirement). And, as mentioned above, “the Court has ... expressed greater tolerance of enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the 

consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less severe.” Vill. of Hoffman 

Estates, 455 U.S. at 498–99.

2 See also Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 442.265 (requiring hospitals to report 

“[t]he number of patients admitted for hospital care for a complication 

which resulted from an abortion”) (emphasis added); 18 Pa. Stat. and Cons. 

Stat. Ann. § 3214 (“Every physician who is called upon to provide medical 

care or treatment to a woman who is in need of medical care because of a 

complication or complications resulting, in the good faith judgment of the 

physician, from having undergone an abortion or attempted abortion shall 

prepare a report thereof and file the report with the department...”) (emphasis added).
No. 20-2407 13

§ 36-2162 (“A health professional who provides medical care 

or treatment to a woman who, in the good faith judgment of the 

health professional, is in need of medical care because of a complication or complications resulting from having undergone 

an abortion...”) (emphasis added).3 We also have previously 

held that a reasonable medical judgment standard does not 

render a statute void for vagueness in the abortion-regulation 

context. See Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 459–60 (7th Cir. 1999). 

Second, as the district court recognized, the statute lacks a 

mens rea or scienter requirement, despite carrying a potential 

term of imprisonment. The lack of a mens rea requirement is 

not dispositive, but “the Supreme Court has repeatedly held 

that imposing an intent requirement on an otherwise vague 

3 See also Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2835 (“As used in this section 

and section 2837 “physical complication” means a physical condition occurring during or after an abortion that, under generally accepted standards 

of medical practice, requires medical attention.”) (emphasis added); Minn. 

Stat. Ann. § 145.4132 (“A physician licensed and practicing in the state who 

knowingly encounters an illness or injury that, in the physician’s medical 

judgment, is related to an induced abortion or the facility where the illness 

or injury is encountered shall complete and submit an abortion complication reporting form to the commissioner”) (emphasis added); Miss. Code 

Ann. § 41-41-77 (“A physician shall file a written report with the State Department of Health regarding each patient who comes under the physician’s professional care and requires medical treatment or suffers death 

that the attending physician has a reasonable basis to believe is a primary, secondary, or tertiary result of an induced abortion.”) (emphasis added); 

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1-738l(C) (“Any physician practicing in Oklahoma 

who encounters an illness or injury that a reasonably knowledgeable physician

would judge is related to an induced abortion shall complete and submit, 

electronically or by regular mail, a Complications of Induced Abortion Report to the Department as soon as is practicable after the encounter with 

the induced-abortion-related illness or injury.”) (emphasis added). 
14 No. 20-2407

statute could save a law from a finding of impermissible 

vagueness.” Whatley, 833 F.3d at 780 (on habeas review, law 

prohibiting drug possession within 1,000 feet of a “youth program center” was unconstitutionally vague) (collecting cases). 

See also Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 149 (“The Court has made clear 

that scienter requirements alleviate vagueness concerns.”); 

City of Chi. v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 55 (1999) (“[I]t is clear that 

the vagueness of this enactment makes a facial challenge appropriate. ... [The law at issue] is a criminal law that contains 

no mens rea requirement[.]”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 

395 (1979) (the Supreme Court “has long recognized that the 

constitutionality of a vague statutory standard is closely related to whether that standard incorporates a requirement of 

mens rea.”); Duhe v. City of Little Rock, 902 F.3d 858, 864 (8th 

Cir. 2018) (disorderly conduct statute not void for vagueness 

because it contained a mens rea requirement); United States v. 

Nieves-Castano, 480 F.3d 597, 603 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[The] scienter requirement ameliorates any vagueness concerns.”). 

The [Supreme] Court, indeed, has recognized that the 

requirement of a specific intent to do a prohibited act 

may avoid those consequences to the accused which 

may otherwise render a vague or indefinite statute invalid. The constitutional vice in such a statute [without 

a mens rea requirement] is the essential injustice to the 

accused of placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which the statute does not define and hence of 

which it gives no warning. 

Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 101–02 (1945). Even among 

similar reporting statutes, Indiana’s statute is atypical in its 
No. 20-2407 15 

exclusion of a mens rea requirement. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

Ann. § 36-2163 (criminalizing willful failure to comply).4

Third, the Statute criminalizes malum prohibitum

(“wrong only because [it is] prohibited”) as opposed to malum in se (“inherently wrong”) conduct. See Papachristou, 405 

U.S. at 163; Arias v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 823, 827 (7th Cir. 2016) (defining malum prohibitum and malum in se). Though these 

characteristics do not categorically make the Complications 

Statute unconstitutionally vague, they do heighten the notice 

concerns here given that an unwitting citizen may not be able 

to anticipate the malum prohibitum law in order to abide by 

it. See United States v. Wilson, 159 F.3d 280, 294 (7th Cir. 1998) 

(Posner, J., dissenting) (“The law is malum prohibitum, not malum in se; that is, it is not the kind of law that a lay person 

would intuit existed because the conduct it forbade was contrary to the moral code of his society.”); see also Conley v. 

United States, 79 A.3d 270, 282 (D.C. 2013) (“[T]he requirement 

of notice embodied in due process ‘places some limits’ on the 

application of these tenets [that ignorance of the law is no defense] when a law criminalizes ‘conduct that is wholly passive’ ... [and] unlike the commission of acts, or the failure to 

act under circumstances that should alert the doer to the consequences of his deed”) (citing Lambert v. People of the State of 

Cal., 355 U.S. 225 (1957)); United States v. Jahagirdar, 466 F.3d 

4 See also Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.2894 (criminalizing willful or 

knowing failure to comply); Miss. Code. Ann. § 41-41-79 (criminalizing 

willful failure to comply); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 188.065 (criminalizing knowing 

failure to comply; imposing civil penalties for willful failure to comply); 

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1-738n (criminalizing knowing or reckless failure 

to comply); 18 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3214(i)(2) (criminalizing 

“willfully providing a report that the doctor knows to be false”).
16 No. 20-2407

149, 154 (1st Cir. 2006) (distinguishing a statute criminalizing 

unconsented-to sexual acts from “ill-defined malum prohibitum violation[s]”). 

In sum, Indiana’s Complications Statute provides few 

guideposts to inform practitioners of the conduct that is expected from them, especially when compared with similar 

statutes in other states. See Cook, 970 F.3d at 873 (acknowledging concern for whether a statute poses a “trap” for “the person acting in good faith”). The vagueness problem here is not 

that the Statute is missing one element or another. Rather, the 

factors outlined above create some uncertainty in the aggregate. Most critically, it is unclear what causal relationship is 

required between the abortion and the complication, and doctors are not provided with an objective standard by which to 

make that decision. Cf. Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 150 (noting the 

statute’s provision of “objective standards”); Whatley, 833 

F.3d at 778 (“Supreme Court precedent ... requires criminal 

statutes to be based on discernable standards.”). 

B. Limitations of a Facial Challenge 

Despite the uncertainties that exist in the Complications 

Statute, we are mindful of the context of this litigation. This is 

a facial, pre-enforcement challenge to a state statute that Defendants acknowledge a state agency will interpret and apply. 

But at this time, the state agency has yet to issue guidance on 

the application and enforcement of the law and no state court 

has attempted to interpret it. See Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 

U.S. at 499, n.5; Tr. of Ind. Univ. v. Curry, 918 F.3d 537, 541 (7th 

Cir. 2019). 

Outside of the First Amendment context, such facial challenges are disfavored. 
No. 20-2407 17 

The general practice, outside of the First Amendment 

context, has been to consider the purported vagueness 

of a statute in light of the facts of the particular case—

i.e., as applied—rather than in the abstract. This means, 

of course, that a litigant challenging the statute ordinarily must show that it is vague as applied to him; and 

if the statute undoubtedly applies to his conduct, he 

will not be heard to argue that the statute is vague as 

to one or more hypothetical scenarios. 

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has on a number of 

occasions entertained facial challenges to criminal statutes that do not implicate First Amendment concerns. 

... [T]he common thread uniting these cases with facial 

challenges in the First Amendment context appears to 

be a concern (or at least a colorable contention) that the 

challenged statute simply has no core and lacks any ascertainable standard for inclusion and exclusion. Such 

a standardless statute poses a trap for the person acting 

in good faith, who is given no guidepost by which he 

can divine what sort of conduct is prohibited. The concern is heightened when the statute contains no mens 

rea requirement, and the uncertainty as to exactly what 

is proscribed threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. 

Cook, 970 F.3d at 873 (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495, n.7; Sec. of 

State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc., 467 U.S. 947, 965–66 

(1984) (“Here there is no core of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct that the statute prohibits.”); 

Tr. of Ind. Univ., 918 F.3d at 541 (“[A] core of meaning is 
18 No. 20-2407

enough to reject a vagueness challenge, leaving to future adjudication the inevitable questions at the statutory margin.”). 

Facial challenges that do not involve the First Amendment 

are “limited.” Fuller ex rel. Fuller v. Decatur Pub. Sch. Br. of 

Educ. Sch. Dist. 61, 251 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2001). “The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that facial invalidation of 

legislation is disfavored.” United States v. Bonin, 932 F.3d 523, 

534 (7th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 960 (2020). So, “courts 

have looked with disfavor on facial vagueness challenges to 

statutes that do not implicate fundamental rights.” Farrell v. 

Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 495 (2d Cir. 2006) (Sotomayor, J.); see also 

id. at 496 (noting the “general rule” that facial vagueness challenges outside of the First Amendment context are disfavored); United States v. Requena, 980 F.3d 30, 40 (2d Cir. 2020). 

Indeed, principles of federalism require us to tread especially 

carefully when reviewing a state law where the state courts 

have not had an opportunity to “give the law a construction 

that will produce adequate clarity.” Tr. of Ind. Univ., 918 F.3d 

at 542. As we said there, “we are not aware of any other decision by the Supreme Court that has used vagueness doctrine 

to prevent the state judiciary from having even a chance to 

give the law a construction that will produce adequate clarity.” Id. 

Here, we cannot conclude that the Complications Statute

has no discernable core. See Cook, 970 F.3d at 873. Although 

Planned Parenthood contests the frequency and seriousness 

of abortion-related complications, Planned Parenthood’s response brief acknowledges that “[t]here are potential complications from the performance of medication and surgical 

abortion.” Planned Parenthood maintains that several of the 

complications listed in the Complications Statute are “not 
No. 20-2407 19 

abortion-specific complications and almost never occur as a 

result of abortions,” but the brief stops short of stating that 

these complications are impossible. 

The complications that a reasonable doctor would find to 

have arisen from an abortion constitute a core of the Complications Statute. See Cook, 970 F.3d at 873; see also Tr. of Ind. 

Univ., 918 F.3d at 541 (“[A] core of meaning is enough to reject 

a vagueness challenge”).5 Although these complications may 

be rare, an individual of ordinary intelligence would understand that there may be complications that arise from an abortion (as is the case with any medical procedure). And when 

one such rare complication occurs, the physician must report 

it if she believes in her reasoned medical judgment that the 

complication arose from an abortion. This “core” of the Complications Statute satisfies the void-for-vagueness test: It is understandable by persons of ordinary intelligence and not subject to arbitrary enforcement.6 

As a result, although we appreciate the dissent’s concerns 

about the ambiguity of this Statute, the Statute must survive 

Planned Parenthood’s pre-enforcement, facial attack. Our 

precedents, especially Trustees of Indiana University, preclude 

any other result in this case. See 918 F.3d at 541. While the dissent focuses on the ambiguity in the Statute, it ignores the procedural posture of this case as a pre-enforcement, facial challenge and the case law governing such facial challenges

5 And again, we have already held that a reasonable medical judgment 

standard itself does not render a law void for vagueness. See Karlin, 188 

F.3d at 459–60. 

6 At least, we have no evidence of arbitrary enforcement of the Statute 

before us at this stage.
20 No. 20-2407

outside of the First Amendment arena. See, e.g., id. Though an 

as-applied vagueness challenge to the Statute may have a different outcome, this challenge to the Statute fails because it is 

a facial challenge to a statute with a discernable core. 

In finding that the Complications Statute has a core composed of those complications that the treating physician reasonably believes to have arisen from an abortion, we are not 

imposing our own construction of the statute upon Indiana, 

which we cannot do. “As federal judges ‘we are without 

power to adopt a narrowing construction of a state statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent.’” 

Wisc. Right to Life, Inc. v. Barland, 751 F.3d 804, 833 (7th Cir. 

2014) (quoting Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 944 (2000)). 

We are cognizant of the Supreme Court’s admonition that 

its “holdings squarely contradict the theory that a vague provision is constitutional merely because there is some conduct 

that clearly falls within the provision’s grasp.” Johnson, 576 

U.S. at 602 (emphasis in original); see also City of Houston, Tex. 

v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 458 (1987). We do not hold that the Complications Statute is constitutional merely because there may 

be some complications that clearly arise from an abortion. Instead, we only hold that these clear-cut cases constitute a core 

of the Complications Statute that renders the Statute immune 

from this pre-enforcement facial challenge. Notably, Johnson’s 

proposition that a statute is not necessarily constitutional because there are some obvious cases that fall within the statute’s purview relied on L. Cohen Grocery and Coates, both of 

which were as-applied challenges by parties against whom 

the statute in question had already been enforced. See id. (citing L. Cohen Grocery, 255 U.S. at 89 (defendant charged with 

willfully setting an unreasonably high price for sugar); Coates, 
No. 20-2407 21 

402 U.S. at 611 (defendants charged with and convicted of violating ordinance prohibiting three or more persons assembling on a sidewalk and “conduct[ing] themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by”). In contrast, Planned 

Parenthood has brought a pre-enforcement, facial challenge 

here. And to survive this facial challenge, Defendants must 

only demonstrate that the Statute has a discernable core. See 

Cook, 970 F.3d at 874. We hold that the Statute does have such 

a core. The enforcement of this Statute will inevitably present 

many uncertainties at the margins, but the resolution of those 

“edge questions” arising from the enforcement of a state law 

is a “principal role of the [state’s] courts.” Tr. of Ind. Univ., 918 

F.3d at 541. 

In addition to finding that the Statute has a discernable 

core, we are also mindful of the second portion of the voidfor-vagueness test, which analyzes the potential for arbitrary 

enforcement of the challenged statute. Johnson, 576 U.S. at 595. 

This law has yet to be enforced—it “is a preenforcement challenge, where ‘no evidence has been, or could be, introduced 

to indicate whether the [Act] has been enforced in a discriminatory manner[.]’” Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 150 (citing Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 503). Here, unlike in Johnson, “there is 

no judicial history of courts struggling to appreciate what particular conduct” Indiana’s legislature intended to reach or of 

courts struggling “to apply the statutory terms to varying sets 

of facts.” Cook, 970 F.3d at 877. 

“We do not suggest that the risk of discriminatory enforcement is insignificant here.” Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 

503. It is certainly possible that Indiana may enforce this law 

in an arbitrary manner that offends due process, particularly 

in a highly controversial area like the regulation of abortion. 
22 No. 20-2407

Again, a future, as-applied challenge may be successful. But, 

“we are not prepared to hold that this risk jeopardizes the entire” statute in a pre-enforcement, facial challenge. Id.; see also 

Tr. of Ind. Univ., 918 F.3d at 541. We will not “assume that [Indiana] will take no further steps to minimize the dangers of 

arbitrary enforcement.” Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 504. 

Indeed, the Indiana defendants have already represented to 

this Court that the Statute will be interpreted in several ways 

to limit its scope and decrease any ambiguity in its application. Indiana’s opening brief tells us for instance, that to qualify as a reportable complication, an abortion must be the butfor cause of the complication. Moreover, the Defendants argue that the “arising from” standard is “necessarily based on 

the physician’s medical judgment,” which “takes into account 

the background and training of the reporter for purposes of 

understanding what must be reported.” Though these representations are not binding,7 we think it prudent to refrain 

from “blot[ting] the law from the books” before Indiana has 

an opportunity to issue administrative guidance and enforce 

the law in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Tr. of 

Ind. Univ., 918 F.3d at 541. Still, the Indiana State Department 

of Health would be well-advised to formally interpret the law 

to include a reasonable medical judgment standard, consistent with its representations to this Court. In addition, the 

Department might consider other limitations in its enforcement of the law, such as limiting the reporting requirement to 

complications that arise within one year of a patient undergoing an abortion, which would help to avoid penalizing 

7 Tr. of Ind. Univ., 918 F.3d at 540 (“Prosecutors can’t offer definitive 

interpretations of criminal laws[.]”). 
No. 20-2407 23

doctors attempting to comply with the law in good faith. Cf. 

Cook, 970 F.3d at 873. 

Finally, we pause briefly to note that this case as currently 

briefed does not directly implicate or “inhibit the exercise of 

constitutionally protected rights[,]” which would heighten 

our concern about the vagueness of the statute. Id. (quoting 

Colautti, 439 U.S. at 391) (vagueness concerns are “heightened 

when the statute contains no mens rea requirement and the 

uncertainty as to exactly what is proscribed threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Hill, 482 U.S. at 458–59. Our 

analysis is strictly limited to the facts as currently pled in 

Planned Parenthood’s complaint, which do not suggest that 

the Statute interferes with or chills a protected constitutional 

right. 

C. Planned Parenthood’s Remaining Arguments 

Planned Parenthood argues in the alternative that even if 

the entire Statute is not unconstitutionally vague, two of the 

enumerated complications, Items 23 and 25,8 are overly 

vague. Though we agree that these particular complications

(such as, general “anxiety”) are especially imprecise, any ambiguity in these two provisions does not change our overall 

8 As provided for by Ind. Code § 16-34-2-4.7(a): 

Item 23: Psychological complications, including depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, and sleeping disorders. .... 

Item 25: Any other adverse event as defined by criteria in the Food 

and Drug Administration Safety Information and Adverse Event 

Reporting Program.
24 No. 20-2407

conclusion that the Statute must survive this pre-enforcement, facial challenge for the reasons outlined above. 

Planned Parenthood also argued in the district court that 

the Complications Statute is both irrational and violates due 

process. The district court, however, did not take up those arguments after finding that the Statute was unconstitutionally 

vague. We take no position on these arguments and remand 

for the district court to consider these arguments in the first 

instance, to the extent the parties still seek a judicial decision 

on them. See Anderson v. City of Rockford, 932 F.3d 494, 512 (7th 

Cir. 2019); FMS, Inc. v. Volvo Const. Equip. N. Am., Inc., 557 F.3d 

758, 763 (7th Cir. 2009) (“When the parties brief an issue that 

has not been addressed by the district court, it is not unusual 

for this court to remand so that the district court may consider 

the issue in the first instance.”). 

III. Conclusion

Because we conclude that the Complications Statute does 

have a discernable core for the purposes of this pre-enforcement, facial challenge, we REVERSE the district court’s entry 

of summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood on its 

vagueness challenge and VACATE the district court’s permanent injunction on that basis. The case is REMANDED to the 

district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with 

this opinion. 
No. 20-2407 25 

WOOD, Circuit Judge, dissenting. It has become an article of 

faith that federal judges, when construing statutes, must adhere scrupulously to the words chosen by the enacting legislature. If the legislature has written a foolish law, so be it—the 

process for changing that law is to return to the legislature for 

corrective action, while in the meantime the foolish law 

stands. But if the legislature has written an incomprehensible 

law, the remedy is not for the judiciary to take a red pencil to 

it and, under the guise of statutory construction, create something that people of ordinary intelligence can follow. In the 

latter case, the court cannot let the incomprehensible law 

stand. The only choice is to strike it down as void for vagueness. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019) (“When 

[the legislature] passes a vague law, the role of courts under 

our Constitution is not to fashion a new, clearer law to take its 

place, but to treat the law as a nullity and invite [them] to try 

again.”).

In the present case, we have before us the 2019 version of 

an Indiana law that imposes a reporting requirement on physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics (collectively, Reporters), with respect to any “complication” “arising from the induction or performance of an abortion.” Ind. Code § 16-34-2-

4.7(a). If a Reporter fails to file a report, he or she has committed a Class B misdemeanor, id. § 16-34-2-4.7(j), and faces up to 

six months in prison and $1,000 in fines, id. § 35-50-3-3. Professional consequences are likely to ensue after such a criminal conviction, including loss of license. The district court, after a careful look at the law and the record, found that this 

statute is unconstitutionally vague and issued a permanent 

injunction against it.
26 No. 20-2407 

My colleagues have voted to overturn that injunction, on 

the theory that they can find an essential “core” meaning to 

the law. But, without admitting this in so many words, their 

rationale amounts to a concession that no such permissible 

core meaning can be discerned without adding critical new 

terms to the law. It is hard to believe that this is an approach 

that courts would, or should, generalize. And indeed, I suspect that there is no appetite to do so. To my knowledge, there 

is no rule saying that courts should bend over backwards 

when faced with an abortion law, but not when the law in 

question relates to gun ownership or use, violence against 

women, or immigrants’ rights. I therefore dissent.

The majority and I do share some common ground. We all 

recognize that the Supreme Court has held that “overly vague 

laws are unconstitutional under the due process clause[s] of 

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Ante at 7, citing Connally v. Gen. Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). Or as the Court 

put it more pithily two years ago, “a vague law is no law at 

all.” Davis, 139 S. Ct. at 2323. Justice Scalia identified the key 

point in an opinion dealing with a statute that criminalizes the 

pandering or solicitation of child pornography. United States 

v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008). After finding that the statute 

in question, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(3)(B), was not subject to facial 

invalidation on overbreadth grounds, the Court turned to 

vagueness doctrine. It then explained what “vagueness” 

means for purposes of due process:

What renders a statute vague is not the possibility 

that it will sometimes be difficult to determine whether 

the incriminating fact it establishes has been proved; 

but rather the indeterminacy of precisely what that fact 

is. Thus, we have struck down statutes that tied 
No. 20-2407 27

criminal culpability to whether the defendant's conduct was “annoying” or “indecent”—wholly subjective judgments without statutory definitions, narrowing context, or settled legal meanings.

553 U.S. at 306. People cannot be required to play a game of 

“Twenty Questions” to figure out what exactly they have 

done (or perhaps someone else has done) that might, or might 

not, violate a particular law. And courts are not permitted to 

rewrite statutes to provide that clarity, as I already have 

noted.

The majority concedes that the Indiana statute before us 

does not tell the Reporter “the extent to which a complication 

must be caused by the abortion itself.” This is a serious flaw,

and it permeates the statute, thus making this case appropriate for a facial challenge. Not a single condition on the state’s 

list is unique to abortions, and so a medical-care provider will 

have no idea whether or not he or she has a reporting obligation. And I am not exaggerating when I say “not a single condition.” First and foremost, the fact that a pregnancy has 

ended in no way suggests that it ended by abortion of any 

kind. It is well known that many pregnancies end in natural 

miscarriage—the Mayo Clinic, for instance, has this to say:

Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy 

before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known 

pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number 

is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so 

early in pregnancy that a woman doesn’t realize she’s 

pregnant.

See Mayo Clinic, Miscarriage, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-
28 No. 20-2407 

miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298. That is an 

equally compelling, alternative explanation for at least conditions (2), (3), (4), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (15). Uterine perforation 

(item 1) can also be caused by a badly placed intra-uterine device (IUD). Infection (item 3) can be caused by countless 

sources. What if a woman goes to her doctor for a routine gynecological examination a year after she has had a medical 

abortion, and the doctor detects an infection? Must it be reported? Does the doctor face imprisonment and loss of license 

if she sees no link between the infection and the earlier procedure? The doctor makes this call at her personal peril. 

Heavy vaginal bleeding (item 4) is equally ambiguous. 

This is a condition more formally called menorrhagia, which 

can be caused by anything from hormone imbalances, dysfunction of the ovaries, uterine fibroids, polyps, adenomyosis, 

IUDs, pregnancy complications such as impending miscarriage or placenta previa, cancer, inherited bleeding disorders, 

medications, to liver or kidney disease. See Mayo Clinic, Menorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding), at https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/menorrhagia/symptomscauses/syc-20352829). Similarly, a pulmonary embolism (item 

5), which is caused by a blocked artery in the lungs, can stem 

from countless sources. What doctor will jump to the conclusion that the cause was an abortion? Risk factors for pulmonary emboli include heart disease, several different cancers, 

surgery, prolonged immobility, COVID-19, smoking, obesity, 

in addition to pregnancy and birth-control pills. See Mayo 

Clinic, Pulmonary embolism, at https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pulmonary-embolism/symptoms-causes/syc-20354647. Deep vein thrombosis (item 6) is 

essentially the same—that simply describes one of the places 

where a blood clot might originate. Id. 
No. 20-2407 29

It is common knowledge that cardiac arrest (item 11), respiratory arrest (item 12), renal failure (item 13), shock (item 

14), coma (item 16), and hemolytic reaction resulting from the 

administration of incompatible blood products (item 20) can 

stem from countless causes. No doctor seeing a woman who 

presented with one of these problems would have the slightest reason to suspect that an abortion was involved—and certainly not an abortion that occurred months or years earlier. 

These conditions are so general as to be entirely uninformative. The same is true of an allergic reaction to anesthesia (item 

22). Allergic reactions to abortion-inducing drugs (item 22)

may seem like a closer call, but even there, no abortion may 

have been undertaken. Typically, medical abortions are accomplished with a two-drug protocol: mifepristone to lower 

progesterone levels, and misoprostol to control bleeding. But 

once again, there are independent medical reasons why someone might need medication to lower her progesterone, and so 

knowledge that this drug was used is inconclusive. High levels of progesterone might indicate ovarian cysts, an adrenal 

disorder, or ovarian cancer. See Verywell Health, Symptoms 

of High Progesterone, at 

https://www.verywellhealth.com/high-progesterone-symptoms-5185751. Misoprostol, though used for abortions, is 

more commonly used to prevent stomach ulcers while taking 

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). See

WebMD, Misoprostol, at

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-6111/misoprostoloral/details. So an allergic reaction to either of these drugs 

might or might not have anything to do with an abortion. 

That leaves hypoglycemia—low blood sugar—while at 

the abortion facility (item 21), an utterly undefined set of psychological complications (item 23), death (item 24), and 
30 No. 20-2407 

“anything else defined by FDA criteria (item 25). These too 

provide little to no focus for the hapless medical-care provider. Low blood sugar is common, even in healthy people. 

Why is there a link to abortion, or even a medical procedure? 

The statute does not say. As for psychological consequences, 

no one has the slightest idea of which ones, or at what level of 

severity, the legislature had in mind, much less when they 

must arise, or what connection to the abortion they might 

have. Must everyone with sleep apnea, a serious sleeping disorder, be reported routinely, for instance? How about restless 

leg syndrome? 

And finally, there is death. How soon must death occur 

after an abortion for it to be considered a complication of 

abortion? Statistics indicate that abortion-related mortality in 

the United States is extremely low. See Suzanne Zane et al., 

Abortion-Related Mortality in the United States 1998–2010, at 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/

(reporting that during the period from 1998 to 2010, there 

were approximately 16.1 million abortion procedures, and 

108 women died, for an exceedingly low mortality rate of 0.7 

deaths per 100,000 procedures). But the State of Indiana has 

chosen to give no guidance on this factor, either.

The statute is also fatally silent on several other critical 

points: (1) is the causation standard for “arising under” liability but-for, contributing factor, or just a presumption that if B 

follows A, then A must have had something to do with B (the 

much maligned post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy); (2) is there 

any period of time after which a Reporter is entitled conclusively to presume that all consequences of the earlier abortion 

have been resolved; and (3) does liability depend on the Reporter’s subjective assessment of the link between the 
No. 20-2407 31

abortion and a listed consequence, or does it depend on the 

assessment that an objective expert in the field would make? 

In addition, the statute makes breathtakingly broad assumptions about the amount of information that will be available to Reporters, and in so doing, it has a sweeping extraterritorial effect. Nothing limits the reporting duty to information the Reporter obtained through the course of her or its 

own treatment of the patient; nothing assures that the patient 

either has told the Reporter about past details of her medical 

history or about precise diagnoses and follow-up treatment; 

and nothing limits the reporting duty to encounters within 

the state of Indiana. If a woman had an abortion in a state or 

country where abortions are legal, and then five years later 

she sees a gynecologist who finds polyps, must that doctor

still report to Indiana pursuant to subpart (a)(4)? Who knows? 

The only thing that is clear is that the doctor must make that 

call while putting her reputation, license, and liberty on the 

line.

The Indiana law has numerous other deficiencies that the 

majority has recognized. It uses a system of criminal penalties 

rather than civil measures; it contains no mens rea or scienter

requirement; and there is nothing inherently evil about the 

conditions it identifies (and thus it is imposing these harsh 

penalties on acts that are mala prohibita, not mala in se).

When we consider whether the plaintiff, Planned 

Parenthood, has proven that this law is vague on its face,1 we 

1 I do not know why the majority thinks that I do not appreciate the 

facial nature of this challenge. My point is that there is no agreed core of 

meaning that can save this particular law, making it one of the small group 

of statutes that lack facial validity. Just as the Supreme Court held in Samuel Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), the due process clauses 
32 No. 20-2407 

must remember Justice Scalia’s definition: are we worried 

about how definitively a particular fact has been proven, or is 

our hapless Reporter unable to figure out what fact to prove 

in the first instance. I do not understand my colleagues to be 

taking the position that if a Reporter wanted to play it safe, 

the Reporter could simply inundate the Indiana Health Department with reports about every single medical visit every 

woman in the state makes while she is between the ages of 12 

and 50, just in case there was an undisclosed abortion or, if the 

abortion is known, there is even a remotely possible link between that abortion and an item on the state’s list. But perhaps, given my colleagues’ view of the statute, that is what 

Reporters should do, knowing that they will not risk omitting 

some information.

My colleagues take refuge in their conclusion that there is 

some discernable core to the Indiana statute before us, which 

they dub the Complications Statute. But they cannot do this 

without rewriting the statute. They first limit the statute to 

“[t]he complications that a reasonable doctor would find to 

have arisen from an abortion ... .” Ante at 19. That sounds like 

an objective standard. But literally two sentences later (three 

if you count a citation), they seem to adopt a subjective standard, when they look to a complication “which the treating 

forbid government from taking life, liberty, or property “under a criminal 

law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct 

it punishes, or so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” Id. at 

595, citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357–58 (1983). Even if one 

thought that the Indiana law gives fair notice of the breathtakingly broad 

set of triggering events, there can be no doubt that it is so standardless that 

it fails under the arbitrary enforcement branch of vagueness doctrine. The 

majority avoids this outcome only by its extensive tinkering with the text 

of the law.
No. 20-2407 33

physician believes in her reasoned medical judgment to have 

arisen from an abortion.” Id. (emphasis added). I grant that 

Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999), held that a “reasonable medical judgment” standard does not render a law 

void for vagueness. But the law in Karlin specified exactly that 

standard: it covered “a condition, in a physician’s reasonable 

medical judgment,” that amounts to a medical emergency. If 

the Indiana law said anything like that, whether using the 

same words or their equivalent, we would have a different 

case. But it does not. 

Immediately after this passage, which as I said leaves ambiguous whether the majority is adopting an objective or a 

subjective standard, the opinion pivots back to something that 

looks more objective: it asserts that “the Complications Statute has a core composed of those complications that the treating physician reasonably believes to have arisen from an abortion.” Ante at 19. It says this despite acknowledging that a statute is not constitutional “merely because there may be some 

complications that clearly arise from an abortion.” Ante at 20. 

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), confirms this, 

when it says that “a statute is not necessarily constitutional 

because there are some obvious cases that fall within the statute’s purview.” Ante at 20. The problem is the guessing game: 

Reporters will never know what triggers their duty to report, 

so they will miss some of the wheat and over-report some of 

the chaff, all at the risk of criminal liability, and all without 

even a negligence standard protecting them, much less a 

higher level of scienter. 

To summarize, Indiana’s statute covers nothing but what 

my colleagues call “edge questions.” Although I do not doubt 

that it would be possible to write a reporting statute of this 
34 No. 20-2407 

type that would avoid unconstitutional vagueness, Indiana 

has not done so yet. It is not clear to me whether the Indiana 

Department of Health can limit the law as drastically as my 

colleagues advise, ante at 22—a federal agency would be obligated to keep its administrative rules within the scope of the 

authorizing statute, but maybe Indiana does not follow that 

principle—but for now there is no reasonable medical judgment standard, no temporal limitation, no scienter requirement, and no but-for causal standard. The district judge correctly found that this left an empty core that cannot be enforced consistently with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I would affirm its judgment, and so I respectfully dissent.