Agnostic.com

2 1

QUESTION Satan Strikes A Blow for Choice

The Satanic Temple has done it again, turning one of the religious right’s best weapons against them.

As you may know, the Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religion which believes in Satan as a metaphor for independence and freedom of thought, not a literal supernatural being. They hold as one of their tenets that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” Whenever Christians are demanding special rights, they can be counted on to show up and ask for the same privilege.

I wrote about the Satanic Temple in 2014, when they announced that they were seeking to overturn abortion restrictions using the Hobby Lobby ruling as precedent. In 2015, they found their test case in Missouri.

Missouri has an exceptionally harsh set of restrictions on abortion, including a three-day waiting period, the longest in the nation, with no exception for rape or incest. The law also has an ultrasound provision and requires the woman to certify receipt of a booklet, written by the state, which says “the life of each human being begins at conception.”

The Satanic Temple’s plaintiff is a woman identified as Mary Doe. When she wanted an abortion, her only option was to take a three-hour bus ride to a St. Louis clinic, take time off from work, and pay for a motel for herself and her child (most women who have abortions are already mothers). All told, this cost her over $500 and forty-five hours of work just to save up the money required.

When Doe got to the clinic, she presented a letter asserting that her Satanic belief in autonomy and bodily integrity allowed her to opt out of the waiting period and other restrictions. When this request was denied, the Satanic Temple filed lawsuits on her behalf in both federal and state court. The federal suit says Missouri’s abortion laws violate her First Amendment right to religious freedom, while the state suit argues that they violate Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Although a ruling hasn’t come yet, there was a breakthrough last month when the case was being argued at the Missouri Supreme Court. Missouri Solicitor General John Sauer was asked about the ultrasound requirement, and this was his answer:

During Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Laura Denver Stith asked the state to clarify whether women are, in fact, forced by law to undergo an ultrasound in order to listen to the fetal heartbeat.

“The best interpretation of that statute,” responded Sauer, “is that she is entitled to decline."

Read more at [patheos.com]

Dougy 7 Feb 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

Yay for the Satanists. Amazing they'd be more xian than those claiming to follow buybull.

2

As is shown by the fact that the judge had to ask about it, Missouri’s TRAP law is ambiguous. It states that an abortion provider “shall provide the woman with the opportunity to view” an ultrasound 72 hours prior. It says she can have the ultrasound elsewhere, but doesn’t say plainly that she’s allowed to turn it down. (An equally plausible interpretation is that the woman must receive the ultrasound but doesn’t have to see the results.) Given the state’s obvious eagerness to use any pretext to shut clinics down, abortion providers could be forgiven for not taking any chances, but now they have a clear statement that it’s optional.

This is a small but real win for choice, knocking down one of the barriers that Missouri sought to place in women’s way. But there are bigger goals in sight. Writing for the Satanic Temple, Jex Blackmore lays out the logic of their lawsuit:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a substantial burden exists where the state “puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.” This is a clear example of the imposition of a substantial burden under RFRA.

However, the State is permitted to burden Mary’s free exercise of religion if they have a compelling interest to do so and are using the least restrictive means possible. Even if the State claims they have a compelling interest in preserving “unborn life,” the burdens are certainly not the least restrictive means possible.

Read more at [patheos.com]

Dougy Level 7 Feb 19, 2018
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:26570
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.