Satanic Temple challenges abortion law

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheLittleLady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you accept one you accept all. Otherwise, you get the very scary prospect of the government defining what is and isn’t a religion.

I guess the key issue here is whether she has to affirm that she agrees with booklet or just that she read it.
 
It begins when the state puts an undo burden on a person’s right to practice their religion. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to say a 3 day wait on getting an abortion is an undo burden.
 
Last edited:
In a case like this, it’s up to the plaintiff to show the court that it is an undue burden, not the defendant to show that it isn’t. The relevant SC case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
 
Last edited:
She presented evidence she was forced to make a religious claim that violates her own religion in order to access healthcare. That seems like an undue burden to me.
 
Maybe the court will agree with you, maybe not. The legal standard is a “rationale basis test” which is the lowest legal standard for the defense. IOW, it’s a pretty low bar for the state to have to meet to have the law upheld.
 
Last edited:
HerCrazierHalf said:
If you accept one you accept all. Otherwise, you get the very scary prospect of the government defining what is and isn’t a religion.
Click to expand...
This sounds catchy and attractive as a one-liner, but in reality, it is never that easy or simple, which is why lawyers and courts exist, and people study for years.

Case-in-point (among other examples): secular governments have to rule whether hardline Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to refuse a blood transfusion for their child in a life-or-death situation. Governments around the world, to my knowledge, do not accept this, nor would the Magisterium.

So religious liberty is always to some extent going to be a battlefield. It also raises the question that people could spontaneously create a new religion and then use it for personal reasons to try to receive exemptions.

So dangers can and do exist on either end of the spectrum.
 
Last edited:
The satanic temple, by their own admission, are not a religion. They do not actively worship a higher (or, in this case, lower) power, stating that they do not actually believe in satan. Therefore, they are nothing more an another (misguided) activist group, and religious protection does not apply to their members.

Easy-peasy.
 
The case was heard and while it will take awhile for the decision the MO solicitor general clarified the state’s interpretation of the abortion law. While it was interpreted by healthcare workers that an ultrasound was required for an abortion the government has said it isn’t. Women seeking an abortion no longer have to have an ultrasound in MO, and hopefully the court will side with Mary Doe on the other aspects of the law.
 
Christ founded the Catholic Religion. God doesn’t give anyone the right to practice sacrilege.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top