Added abortion restrictions target providers.

Hoosier students take part in a national walkout.

And Indiana lawmakers try to tackle townships again.

From the television studios at WFYI Public Media.

It's Indiana Week in Review for the week ending January 23rd, 2026.

Indiana Week Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.

Lawmakers approved a bill tightening enforcement around medical abortions.

It targets people providing illegal abortions in and out of the state, has Ben Thorp reports.

Part of the bill follows efforts in Texas to allow lawsuits against individuals and companies shipping abortion pills into Indiana.

Statewide, abortions dropped from almost 8000 in 20 22 to 142 in 2024, following the passage of the state's near-total abortion ban.

But some lawmakers worry there are still providers supporting abortions in the state illegally, with no real process for going after them.

Abortion advocates argue the legislation is yet another effort to chill health care workers effort to provide necessary and legal health care.

Senator Liz Brown disagreed with that assessment.

Well, we're seeing is an influx and people getting and breaking the law and mailing these drugs directly to women.

God forbid any of you physicians are complicit in that.

The bill would also expand how abortions are defined, increasing reporting requirements for doctors.

Is this move necessary as Indiana's abortion ban is already fairly restrictive?

It's the first question for our Indiana Week in Review panel.

Democrat Robin Winston, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capitol Chronicle.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

I so, Mike, does this legislation close the supposed loophole?

It's trying to I thought the original law went too far, but if you are going to and I've said this before, if you're going to pass these laws, they have to be enforceable and you can't you can't allow certainly in this situation where it's almost it's could be very dangerous where you're sourcing drugs from out of state or a doctor's source and drugs from out of state to circumvent the law that that does need to be dealt with.

Now, I think they over dealt with it.

I don't think there should be a 20 year window after that.

You could sue the woman or the drug company.

so I think they they want a little for how this is going to be enforceable.

You know, the with the remedy, if you can't identify the source of the drug, you sue all the companies or all the companies have to share in damages.

that's new, you know, but then there's a second issue in that same bill, which wasn't, you know, wasn't discussed first.

the identifying the effort to identify these women and that and their doctors and I was like in the committee she said, look, in my small town, people are able to figure that out.

yeah.

They're going to say, look, I know who the doctor was.

They're going to know who the woman was.

and so I think that part does need to be protected.

I'm glad they took that step.

I don't think it's probably far enough.

but that that information should be protected.

But on the suing the drug company are closing.

Closing that loophole like the law or don't like it.

That practice shouldn't be allowed.

Well, Robin, we did hear, you know, from people that testified that this bill, you know, worried about the fact that it targets providers, should that be a concern for lawmakers?

Well, it's going to have a chilling effect in a lot of towns.

I mean, you're going to be like you said, Mike, if you're in Paoli you're going to know who the doctor is.

You're going to probably, unfortunately, maybe even know who the woman was that was involved.

We should not be, disseminating that information to the general public.

I'm more concerned about maternal care.

We rank very, very low in that.

If we would devote the same kind of energy to that, taking care of the people that are about to have children, we go a lot further in our state.

Now, Niki, is some of the provisions in the bill talk about, as Mike mentioned, you know, bringing able to bring, civil suits against providers and others that were involved in distributing, you know, this medication, is this going to be a concern?

Do you think lawmakers will tackle that as this bill moves?

Yeah.

I mean, it's a it's a big swing.

It's modeled after a Texas law that went in.

I mean, it's one thing for you to say, like, obviously if someone is illegally sending or prescribing this medication in Indiana, should the police and prosecutors be able to go after them?

Yes.

It's another thing to say, you know, that my next door neighbor can sue me for it, you know, and and just get $100,000 for fun, you know, just, and that's, that's what this law does is basically.

And in the committee, it was called basically bounties for you to go after friends, family or whatever who maybe helped someone use an abortion inducing drug.

Jon, do you think you know that concern that we did hear quite a bit of discussion about that people, you know, would be so incentivized to, you know, kind of tell on others that.

I mean, the suggestion that if there's $100,000 minimum available, would I or someone else just kind of drop a dime on somebody with hopes of making having a windfall?

Sure.

I think there's, ample opportunity for that to be abused, and caused a lot of distress in our state.

You know, it seems to me this is about we already have a very strict law in the state.

Yes, there are people who still, through telehealth and and prescriptions written out of state, do still receive abortions, but it's gone down dramatically.

And and instead of saying, well, we accomplished what we wanted to anti-abortion factions want to see this.

It seems to me it's about sending a message, because as a practical matter, if you look about the notion about going after providers, manufacturers and so forth out of state who are sending these medications in, even though the bill specifically says, you know this, we can't go after you.

Shield laws don't protect you.

That's baloney.

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you have two dozen states, and I presume that the vast majority of the medications that are being written here are from New York, California, Massachusetts, other states that have shield laws, Rhode Island, others, and the district, which specifically say, well, it doesn't matter what your state says, you can't.

We're not going to cooperate with you.

We're not enforcing your subpoenas.

We're not investigating.

We're not going to extradite you.

We're not doing anything.

So eventually this is going to go to the U.S.

Supreme Court.

It has to until then, this is kind of I won't say silly, but it's about a message.

And in terms of the external enforcement, out of state means nothing for those states where there are shield us.

Well, as I mentioned, you know, there are legal issues and lawmakers seem to be fairly certain of that as they, you know, wrote the bill, should they be considering that?

Oh, look, there's no reason not to take take the big swing, right?

There's been no evidence that Democrats ran a the best funded, best coordinated, best recruited, election in in 2024 that we've seen in a long, long time.

And they made this central issue extremism on abortion and won exactly zero races.

And so you look at like so Republicans have no reason to just go, I'm going to go swing for the fences and the Supreme Court be damned.

Right.

Because there's they've not it's I've heard that Democrat Democrats have never proven that there's going to be a political consequence on the back end for it.

Yeah, they may win in the US Supreme Court too, which which would justify maybe these these arguments.

But I'm just saying in the meantime, it's a moot point until the Supreme Court weighs in, for.

We also didn't lose any seats in 24 and Donald Trump won the state over.

You started in the whole.

I know, man.

But we didn't not lose any seat.

And we're looking at 26 now.

It's a whole different world.

This is about February 6th founding deadline.

People want to be who's right of right in a lot of the primaries in their party.

And I think they're laying down kind of like I know, but they were told that there's going to be a lot.

So we'll see.

And the bottom line is, I think people right now are trying to make sure they don't get outflanked on the right.

Well, it's now time for viewer feedback.

Each week we pose an unscientific online poll question.

This week's question Does Indiana need even more restrictions on abortion?

Answer yes or no.

The last question posed to viewers should the state ban social media for children and teens?

Pretty even split.

Yes, saying 57% and no 43%.

If you would like to take part in the poll.

Go to WFYI.org and look for the poll.

Hundreds of students at Carmel High School walked out Tuesday afternoon as part of a nationwide protest against the Trump administration.

As Farrah Anderson reports, walkouts across the country marked one year since President Donald Trump was inaugurated to serve his second term.

What do we want?

Justice.

When do we want it?

Now!

Hundreds of Carmel students chanted as they marched from the high school to the city hall.

Student Jack McNally says he and many of his classmates are scared.

In the midst of the Trump administration's immigration raids and use of federal law enforcement throughout the country.

McNally says it's important for young people to stand up for what they believe in.

We call ourselves.

The land of the free and the home of the brave.

But freedom means nothing when.

People are.

Forced to live in fear and bravery does not exist when we stay silent.

Many students held signs protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement or I.C.E.

Police officers escorted protesters along the route.

So, Robin, why do you think this particular walkout received so much attention?

First off, because they did it.

I mean, you know, they did it in a in an area that people cover a lot.

People know Carmel, so they know that that's an aberration.

We're in a Republican rich county that people would never think that would happen.

But 250 kids walked out.

I talked to the superintendent doctor on strike about this.

First they have to make up their work.

So it's not like they're going to people that would criticize and say, well, they walked back so they would get out of class and work.

It was the last block of the day.

So it wasn't like it disrupted the school day.

The police were there to assist and to monitor.

So they did everything right.

The General Assembly has been saying that we need to do more civics education.

This is a culmination of it.

They decided to go out and do something that's protest.

I think they've also seen people impacted by the immigration policies.

I don't remember the guy that's in the white House campaigning on going door to door to say, we're going to find out whether you're a citizen and if you are, we might still take you out.

I don't remember that being part of his platform.

So I, I commend these students, and I hope that they have 30 days before November and 26th to register to vote and vote.

I mean, we had a social post that really went wild after these kids had their walkout, and we saw a number of smaller protests around, you know, this walkout.

But as these protests, you know, start to grow in the state of Indiana, I mean, it's nothing like we're seeing, of course, in Minnesota, but, but yeah, it's a year, right?

I mean, that's kind of what it's scary.

Like Indiana could lay in there, you know, at any time.

Like, what's your feeling on, you know, as these protests do start to increase.

We're already seeing the politics start to turn.

I mean, Minnesota was driving that this week.

JD Vance was was it was there an even he had to concede that this is going too far.

you know and the more videos you're seeing, a five year old's getting pulled out of bed or, you know, people just getting pulled off the street and thrown into a rented van from a from a cop and a face mask.

I mean, the the the politics just are going nuts, are turning.

And I think even, you know, if you watch the, commentary this week from, from the white out from the president, from the white House and from, from the vice president, you can tell that they're acknowledging that, that they are starting to pay a political price for this being on live television every day.

and Niki, you know, as we mentioned, you know, this is, you know, goes back to the white House and we've seen, you know, President Trump targeting some of our local lawmakers and Indiana here.

What do you think?

You know, this means for the larger landscape a year into president's, administration, you know, as a as it relates to two, I mean, he's still very popular here in Indiana, and he's still got a lot of supporters.

So I did notice that, you know, for instance, Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith definitely hopped on the train on social media this week to call out the Carmel Kids.

like Robin said, one thing I wanted to note is because at first I was like, wow, you know, how much class time do they miss?

They left at 230 guys at 230 when I was in high school.

We got out at 245, like, you know, God forbid they want to, you know, have a say about their community for 15 minutes.

And they were structure about it.

They worked with the principal, you know, their parents gave permission.

I thought it was a great example of, you know, kids getting involved in the system.

Yeah, it is always refreshing to see, you know, young people out and having their voices heard.

Jon.

but as we, you know, look again towards, you know, the administration and any repercussions, for Indiana is are we going to, you know, feel the, the, the effects.

There's so many people on the naughty list in the white House right now.

Pretty soon, I don't know how you can manage.

you need.

I, data centers out the lawsuit just to keep track of all the people who have run afoul of Donald Trump's, sensibilities.

I, too think it's great that young people are engaging.

I much prefer this to bearing themselves in their social media.

and looking at cat videos.

Nothing wrong with cat videos.

I like cats, I like videos, so.

Don't know, letters, please.

But, I mean, this is engaging.

It's caring about their future, their communities.

And ultimately that's the generation we're all going to be depending on to, to take us out.

and so more power to them.

If you look at the sentiments about this.

Yeah, this is still a Republican state, so forth.

But if you look at new data, the New York Times, for instance, just published this week, America is still divided on deportation policies.

you know, and the notion about border security.

But there really is a fair consensus here about I.C.E.

going too far.

you you look that there are a number of Republicans, not a majority, but a number of Republicans in this poll that said I.C.E.

is a problem.

we are all about legal, the proper deportation.

We're about strong borders.

This has gone too far.

So I don't think, to answer your question, there are any legitimate repercussions, that will come out of this.

But lawmakers are once again trying to dissolve some township governments in Indiana.

As Ben Thorp reports, bills are moving through the Senate and the House with competing visions on how to reduce local government.

Lawmakers have for years tried to reduce township government, arguing that it presents an added layer of bureaucracy and funding that taxpayers have to shoulder.

One bill would require townships of a certain size to dissolve well, another creates mergers based on performance.

Senator Rick Niemeyer sponsored the performance bill, which he said would cause over 300 townships to merge.

He says it was important not to use the population as a metric.

Maybe it's some townships out there that would fall.

Under some kind of a population figure but are really, really doing.

Their job.

The township government is mainly tasked with providing public assistance through the trustees office.

So, Niki, how many times now would you estimate that lawmakers have tried to alter township government?

Well, I've been around a while, so it's a it's a lot of them in 25 years, I will say that, you know, there's something I think they might get there at least partially this year.

You know, the House or Senate have different approaches to the bills, but they would both eliminate several hundred, you know, townships ones, a more direct ones, point based system where, you know, if you're not giving out township relief and, you know, you don't have a fire station and you're making more.

Money, do it.

Yeah.

Exactly.

That like you think they're doing, you would basically be forced to merge.

So the fact that two concurrent bills are moving, I think that says a lot about they could probably find a middle ground that would reduce it significantly.

Well, Jon, I didn't do the math.

So I don't know exactly.

You know, how many other states have held onto this township government structure?

But I know Indiana has held tight, but it's been, you know, varying degrees of success across townships.

So they were set up to aid in surveying, the Northwest Territory or whatever we were back in the day.

And they've been around a vestige of, of an older, simpler time.

but they are durable.

Perhaps it's been because it is the government, as the cliche says, it's closest to the people.

Or you have the fact that a lot of lawmakers were in township government.

I mean, these are they came up through that.

That was the farm system where they know these people.

But I do think something maybe has changed as as Nicki suggests this session.

And the irony is when it's failed in the past, probably two dozen times, and that's no exaggeration.

Over the years there had been even years with concerted efforts, back during Mitch Daniels, gubernatorial tenure.

And you had the Kernan-Shepard report in 2007, I think, with specific recommendations.

And there was a lot of, oh, and political capital behind this, and it was mentioned in state of the state addresses, and there was a lot of fist pounding didn't work.

Now, this is sort of been off the radar.

Other issues were at the forefront this session.

And if it happens, it's perhaps ironic that it comes up.

I won't say out of nowhere.

but this is when the perennial bill finally, I guess, gets its due.

If in fact, there is a compromise this session, and it does seem that there maybe is an appetite that there wasn't in the past.

Well, Mike, I know at the state House, you know, lawmakers are over broadly trying to reduce, you know, government trying to reduce a number of different ways in which government may not function.

Well.

Is this one of those ways?

Yeah.

And if you open the door, you can like anything else you can grow.

You can continue to grow it.

If you can like set up, set a threshold where you eliminate a couple of hundred of them and then keep making the case to to expand that, I think you kind of get on that, get on that path.

When I was county chairman, interest county's largest or the only, I think it's the only county in the state that doesn't have a city and that don't have mayors.

So you're left with seeds like layers on, layers on layers on layers of government that you've got to deal with with, like the township and the town.

And maybe you're out of the town now, you talk to the county, but the guy across the street is in the town.

You know, it's it's like it was so confusing.

and so I always push for consolidation of those towns in the townships because, you know, I don't remember the stats you mentioned, like, well, how many other states have done this, but the stats of 18, 20 or 20 years since the current Shepherd first started this conversation?

But at the time it was like per capita, the biggest in the country, like the units of government that people lived under in Indiana was the highest per capita of any other place in the country, including California, and places that we probably think are lousy with government.

so this is a path we should have gone down a long time ago.

I hope they I hope they close the deal.

This, I must go to some reports here locally that, you know, trustees do have extremely varying degrees of success.

And, you know, their core goal now, which is to provide assistance.

Right.

is that something that we should be considering as we consider this move?

Because, I mean, again, there are and does does the formula make sense that lawmakers are looking at.

Well, yeah.

Well, I don't know about the formula.

But you know, there's a big difference between Anderson Township and Hendricks County and Wayne Township here and Adams County, Adams Township in Sheridan.

I think one is playing a role in this because people I talked to were like, well, wait a minute, they're sitting on how much money over here?

And I'm struggling to determine how much I'm going to get my streets paved or have police in my department.

So I think that has been some of the impetus for more of a review.

But it's going to be interesting when you start tangling with township governments.

Ask about small school districts and you might get the same answer.

It's going to it's going to take a sea change by the Republican legislature.

You asked that question on the reserves and Ways and Means like and then the answer is we don't know, like collectively, what do all these townships have in reserve financially.

Right.

And the answer was, we don't know.

I think there has to be a little bit more a math done, if you will.

as we're considering, you know, this, but maybe this is the year state lawmakers are pushing a bill to convince Chicago Bears to relocate to Indiana.

Samantha Horton reports the legislation paves the way for a new football stadium in northwest Indiana.

The team wants a new stadium, and the bill would create the Northwest Indiana Stadium Authority, a three member board that would pursue the necessary funding and acquire the land.

Lawmakers are trying to recreate the effort that brought the Indianapolis Colts to the state in the 1980s.

The bill moved quickly through Senate committees.

Senator David Niezgodski notes the current version will likely change before it reaches the governor's desk.

I know that there are many conversations still out there.

I believe this bill has.

Greater work, that it's going to take place before it's finished.

The Chicago Bears have said they would consider Indiana for a new stadium location.

So, Jon, do you think the bears would ever move to Indiana?

Well, I mean, hats off to the governor and lawmakers for moving quickly to try to capitalize on this.

I mean, it would make if the bears came, they'd be the second best football team in the state of Indiana.

Have to get that right.

well, I'm saying third behind the Colts to I was thinking IU was, Sorry.

Colts, cats, Colts.

No anger here.

but so there is this is the sincere attempt to make this happen.

But I think ultimately it ain't going to happen.

This is leverage.

This is getting Arlington Heights, which is the preferred location the bears have said as much to to come up with a they want property tax certainty.

And what are we going to pay.

and they'll get that eventually because I don't think I can see Governor Pritzker, you know, setting up, our militia at the, at the border to keep the Mayflower moving trucks from moving them out of state, I don't think.

I mean, that's the Chicagoans in the group, but I don't see it happening in the end.

So this is Niki.

Do think not going to resemble, you know, what happened with the with the Colts when they moved to Indiana?

Well, first of all, I don't think in this day and age you could ever pull something like that off with no one knowing, like the 24 hour news cycle on social media and stuff.

I mean, I think it's a Hail Mary, right?

You know, but the fact is, is if there at least have them listening.

You know, put out a good proposal.

Out there and at least made the make them think about it, you know, I mean, it couldn't, couldn't hurt.

I mean, Robin, when we are, you know, looking, lawmakers is coming to the state House and actually putting a full package together to consider, you know, a move for the Bears to northwest Indiana.

do you think that lawmakers should be spending time on this issue?

Oh, I think they should.

I mean, their constituency clearly wants it.

It'd be great to do it.

But how about this as a compromise, how about a practice facility in northwest Indiana?

I mean, we had when a grand park, it's closed.

You can get there.

It's a compromise.

Your side of the deal.

It's the art of the deal.

So you'd be able to say that you walked away with something, put a practice facility there if they don't get the Bears themselves.

You know, we've heard from, I've heard from a lot of bears fans that, you know, this is, just would never happen because the fans would not allow it.

Do we feel like, do you feel like maybe there is going to be a little bit of an issue there?

Like the fans will absolutely put their foot down.

I love the Chicago Bears.

I've been a huge bears fan my whole life.

you know, I think they'll I think they'll take it in in exchange for, what the experiences of going to current Soldier Field, which is awful.

It's hard to do everything.

It's expensive.

but no, I think it's real.

Well, I think it shows that, like, how quick Indiana can move and talk to senior legislative leaders who are dealing with the team, the leadership of the team.

And, like you would believe, how grateful these guys are to just get a phone call back because the Illinois legislators been telling them to pound sand for five years.

you know, and look at the consequence of will they ever move is at all leverage.

It could be leverage, but it's to leverage themselves out of a $200 million a year property tax bill when the next closest NFL team is so far as LA paying 8 million.

I mean, that's an insane number and completely reflective of how Illinois handles things.

And so I would be surprised if they move at all.

Dallas the Dallas Cowboys can move out of Dallas.

The Chicago Bears can move out of Chicago.

Well, I know in Kansas certainly it's been Missouri and New York.

You go back to the first question.

If lawmakers pass a law that says the bears can't play across state lines in Illinois, that has as much effect as the abortion regulation you talked about earlier.

I guess what we're trying to bring up for Chicago with them, and I'm like, these people are idiots.

What do they think they're doing?

It certainly help northwest Indiana as far as, redevelopment New York Jets.

That's right.

Yeah.

San Francisco 49.

Yeah.

Mel's Cowboys are the team that doesn't play in the state of Kansas City.

Is moving from one state to the next quickly.

Going to talk about IU today too, because they were able to go all the way.

And everyone in Indiana has just been so proud this week.

IU alum Jon.

I don't make many sound predictions.

I mean, I make a lot of predictions.

Most of them are lousy.

not sound unsound predictions.

But if you go back and review the archives and I'm sure people are doing this as we speak, you will see that I predicted this outcome before the season began.

No joke.

It is.

I do that every season, though, right?

Eventually.

Kind of.

so watch.

But that's Indiana Week in Review for this week.

Our panel has been Democrat Robin Winston, Republican Mike O'Brien, Jon Schwantes, host of Indiana Lawmakers.

And Niki Kelly, editor in chief at Indiana Capital Chronicle.

You can find Indiana Week in Review, podcast and episodes at WFYI.org/IWIR or on the PBS app.

I'm Jill Sheridan, managing editor at WFYI.

Join us next time, because a lot can happen in an Indiana week.

The views expressed are solely those of the panelists.

Indiana Week in Review is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting stations.

Additional support is provided by ParrRichey.