Indiana Appeals Court: Plaintiffs' religious beliefs entitle them to an abortion

[weaver2]

Obviously a bad ruling that will be overturned since you can’t use religion as an exemption to secular law

The religious conservatives in Indiana are just getting to experience what they have been doing for 40years: changing the law to institute their brand of religion in women's reproductive lives. Now a group of American Reformed Jewish women are suing to be exempt from conservative evangelical laws banning abortion because their religion allows abortion. Same technique exactly. Why are you objecting.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The religious conservatives in Ohio are just getting to experience what they have been doing for 40years. Changing the law to institute their brand of religion in women's reproductive lives. Now a group of American Reformed Jewish women are suing to be exempt from conservative evangelical laws banning abortion because their religion allows abortion. Same technique exactly. Why are you objecting.

Abortion is not a religious rite under Reform Judaism, and in any event you can only get exemptions from secular law for religious reasons if the practice is such the government has no reason to restrict it ie Native American rites using peyote are protected, human sacrifice is not

 

[Pyrite]

Obviously a bad ruling that will be overturned since you can’t use religion as an exemption to secular law

Injunction on Indiana abortion ban for religious beliefs upheld by Court of Appeals​

The RFRA, passed in 2015, prohibits government action that interferes with a person's religious exercise.

www.wthr.com

...The ACLU argued the ban violates women's rights in Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

The RFRA, passed in 2015, prohibits government action that interferes with a person's religious exercise, unless the government can prove it has a compelling reason for doing so and uses the least restrictive means available....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Injunction on Indiana abortion ban for religious beliefs upheld by Court of Appeals​

The RFRA, passed in 2015, prohibits government action that interferes with a person's religious exercise.

www.wthr.com

...The ACLU argued the ban violates women's rights in Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

The RFRA, passed in 2015, prohibits government action that interferes with a person's religious exercise, unless the government can prove it has a compelling reason for doing so and uses the least restrictive means available....

Abortion is not a religious exercise.

This is an injunction anyway and not a ruling. I doubt a final ruling will find in favor of the plaintiff because then you’re setting a court precedent that because you have secular political beliefs and also are part of a certain religion that your political beliefs are to be imposed via the RFRA

 

[Spock]

Obviously a bad ruling that will be overturned since you can’t use religion as an exemption to secular law

Appellate courts can apply Constitutional arguments for exemptions from "secular" law.

Abortion ban likely violates religious freedoms, Indiana appeals court says

Jewish women in Indiana fought against one of the nation's strictest abortion laws, arguing that the restrictions conflict with their religious belief that abortions are necessary if the health of the pregnant person is compromised.

www.courthousenews.com

 

[Pyrite]

Abortion is not a religious exercise.

This is an injunction anyway and not a ruling. I doubt a final ruling will find in favor of the plaintiff because then you’re setting a court precedent that because you have secular political beliefs and also are part of a certain religion that your political beliefs are to be imposed via the RFRA

I haven't said it is.

What I've pointed out: Indiana state law (the RFRA) appears to support the right to abortion, when the girl's or woman's religion doesn't prohibit it.

Hoosier GOPers have gotten themselves into a conundrum.

How does the old phrase go? "How sweet it is"....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I haven't said it is.

What I've pointed out: Indiana state law (the RFRA) appears to support the right to abortion, when the girl's or woman's religion doesn't prohibit it.

No it doesn’t,

 

[Lursa]

Obviously a bad ruling that will be overturned since you can’t use religion as an exemption to secular law

Federal law supersedes state law.

 

[Lursa]

Indiana Court of Appeals upholds narrow order against abortion ban

A three-judge panel said the state has not proven a compelling interest in protecting life at the expense of one's religious beliefs.

www.wishtv.com

...Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Leanna Weissman wrote the state did not prove a compelling interest in protecting life from the moment of fertilization.

“The General Assembly has declined to explicitly define human beings to include zygotes, embryos, or all fetuses,” Weissman wrote. “The Abortion Law also does not designate the exact point during pregnancy when the state’s interest in a zygote, embryo, or fetus becomes compelling.”

Weissman also called attention to the narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and medical complications, writing, “The state does not explain why a victim of rape or incest is entitled to an abortion, but women whose sincere religious beliefs direct an abortion are not. The state also does not explain how allowing an abortion of a “fetus diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly”—as is conditionally permitted by the Abortion Law—advances the state’s alleged compelling interest in protecting potential life.”...

This opinion discusses much of what I keep bringing up...what are the justifications for ANY of the exceptions? Why acceptable to kill the unborn at 6 weeks but not 12?

Why acceptable in cases of rape or incest?

The fact that every state has some or all of these exceptions shows that the "state" does NOT consider the unborn the same as born people. And not the same as the federal legal status of "persons" either.

Not to mention...what is the "states' compelling interest" in potential life, specifically?

 

[jpn]

Abortion is not a religious rite under Reform Judaism, and in any event you can only get exemptions from secular law for religious reasons if the practice is such the government has no reason to restrict it ie Native American rites using peyote are protected, human sacrifice is not

Which reminds me, there's no reason in hell why churches should be tax-exempt.

Free-loaders.

 

[jpn]

This opinion discusses much of what I keep bringing up...what are the justifications for ANY of the exceptions? Why acceptable to kill the unborn at 6 weeks but not 12?
Why acceptable in cases of rape or incest?
The fact that every state has some or all of these exceptions shows that the "state" does NOT consider the unborn the same as born people. And not the same as the federal legal status of "persons" either.
Not to mention...what is the "states' compelling interest" in potential life, specifically?

Great points. Does anyone here at DP ever try to directly address them?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Which reminds me, there's no reason in hell why churches should be tax-exempt.

Free-loaders.

I would love for the democrats to try this. Because all the churches run by middle and upper class whites will be able to pay taxes, I don’t think shutting down black churches and Latino parishes is going to be good for social order or electoral politics for democrats, so I endorse this idea, go ahead and do it.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This opinion discusses much of what I keep bringing up...what are the justifications for ANY of the exceptions? Why acceptable to kill the unborn at 6 weeks but not 12?

Why acceptable in cases of rape or incest?

The fact that every state has some or all of these exceptions shows that the "state" does NOT consider the unborn the same as born people. And not the same as the federal legal status of "persons" either.

Not to mention...what is the "states' compelling interest" in potential life, specifically?

Oh so we agree, total ban no exceptions

 

[Lovebug]

I have no trouble believing that as a product of hyper liberal American Reform Judaism. Though I am surprised that a court was so willing to accept the characterization of abortion, ie the taking of a human life, as a protected religious act without the slightest hesitation.

It also cites theological teachings allowing abortion in at least some circumstances by Islamic, Episcopal, Unitarian Universalist and Pagan faiths.

 

[Lovebug]

Indiana Court of Appeals issues opinion in religious-based abortion lawsuit

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that individuals who have a religious exemption to Indiana’s near-total abortion ban would be exempt from it, agreeing with…

fox59.com

...In a separate, yet concurring, opinion, Judge L Mark Bailey said individuals should resort to their own conscience and creed to make their decision “without undue state interference,” stressing that legislators are “ill-equipped to define when life begins.”

“Legislators, an overwhelming majority of whom have not experienced childbirth, nevertheless dictate that virtually all pregnancies in this State must proceed to birth notwithstanding the onerous burden upon women and girls,” he said. “They have done so not based upon science or viability but upon a blanket assertion that they are the protectors of ‘life’ from the moment of conception. In my view, this is an adoption of a religious viewpoint held by some, but certainly not all, Hoosiers. The least that can be expected is that the remaining Hoosiers of childbearing ability will be given the opportunity to act in accordance with their own consciences and religious creeds....

I completely agree with this

Hoosiers of childbearing ability will be given the opportunity to act in accordance with their own consciences and religious creeds....

Men, esp overly religious ones, need to shut it. If, and only if, a woman wishes to discuss her circumstance with them may they voice an opinion.

 

[Lursa]

Great points. Does anyone here at DP ever try to directly address them?

A very few are at least honest and say they believe that abortion in cases of rape and incest are murder and believe it's wrong. So they are consistent, IMO inhumane, but consistent.

But no one really addresses the "how many weeks" thing before viability with anything but "it's a compromise." ??? Do we compromise on killing 2 yr olds vs 4 yr olds? It may be this:

Because it's about penalizing women, it's not at all about preserving the unborn. ​

​

It makes no sense...just to create a cutoff as a 'punishment.' "She should have done it sooner." That's spite, not compromise.​

Or...someone please tell me...what distinction(s) in the unborn or woman's condition do you consider when considering limiting abortion to certain timeframes?

 

[Lursa]

Oh so we agree, total ban no exceptions

Why? Who says abortion is wrong, what authority that Americans are obligated to obey? Not the Cosnt and not SCOTUS.

Please tell us.

 

[choiceone]

Obviously a bad ruling that will be overturned since you can’t use religion as an exemption to secular law

This is silly. Freedom of religion is a federally guaranteed personal right. The reason no one can force you to donate blood for transfusion or organs for transplantation even if yours are the only available compatible ones, and even if the needy person is your own child, is because you don't have to believe in in blood transfusion or organ transplantation. There are specific Christian sects that repudiate these, and freedom of religion exempts them from donating.

 

[choiceone]

Abortion is not a religious rite under Reform Judaism, and in any event you can only get exemptions from secular law for religious reasons if the practice is such the government has no reason to restrict it ie Native American rites using peyote are protected, human sacrifice is not

No, you don't get it.

The woman should not have to sacrifice her health for an embryo or fetus when she doesn't believe that the embryo or fetus has a right to use her body, as she belongs to a religion that specifically says her life and health, including mental health, take priority over the life of an embryo or fetus, and that she is a person but the embryo isn't.

She should not have to be subject to a law that says an embryo is a person or that the state has a right to force her to let the embryo use her body despite its violation of her own needs. Her freedom of religion should protect her from the claims of the state over her body.

 

[Jason Warfield]

When you sink so far as to characterize it as a religious act then yeah.

Numbers. You may want to read it.

It describes how if a woman is accused or found guilty of cheating on her husband…and is pregnant…then the woman is made to drink water that is essentially tainted and if the child she is carrying dies as a result, that is God’s punishment. If it doesn’t, then that is God’s forgiveness.

If the child dies in womb as a result, that is faith-based acceptance for abortion for a specific reason.

 

[Jason Warfield]

The existence of life is a scientific matter not a legal matter. It is an undeniable scientific truth that zygotes and fetuses are not inanimate objects.

Sigh.

Please stop with the inanimate defense. It doesn’t help you that much. A zygote can move around and still not be a human being yet.

That point comes much later.

BTW, not a fan of abortion myself. I’m pro choice simply because government should not be involved for the now-obvious reasons.

 

[dockside]

Abortion is human sacrifice, now?????? You better check your anti-abortion propaganda machine; it's overheating. I fear it will blow up and ruin your busy little workshop. Human sacrifice? Even for the most rabid of anti-abortion advocates that's a stretch.

As I see it and have experienced it, getting pregnant and dying as a result is a human sacrifice of a living human person. Giving birth and dying in the process (I didn't die, luckily, but came very close to internally bleeding to death) is human sacrifice when it is mandated by law prohibiting an abortion. Unfortunately, it is human sacrifice of a living human being, not a potential living human being.

 

[Lursa]

As I see it and have experienced it, getting pregnant and dying as a result is a human sacrifice of a living human person. Giving birth and dying in the process (I didn't die, luckily, but came very close to internally bleeding to death) is human sacrifice when it is mandated by law prohibiting an abortion. Unfortunately, it is human sacrifice of a living human being, not a potential living human being.

I'm glad you are ok. It seems most people choose to forget how dangerous every single pregnancy can be...and it cant be predicted nor always prevented. But the anti-abortites feel it's ok for women to take those risks based on their religion or 'feelings.' Because "the "baybee" always dies! The woman has a better chance." Easy to say when it's not your life.

 

[JasperL]

I’m pointing out that human sacrifice has never before been considered a lawful exercise of religion for anyone in this country and that American Reform Judaism isn’t exactly representative of the Jewish religion as a whole.

So...only some religious beliefs are protected? The ones you know about and agree with?

And of course if anyone really believed abortion ==> human sacrifice, we'd have prisons full of women, millions of them, for, you know, human sacrifice. So you can save the inflammatory terms for someone who's an idiot. That wouldn't be most of us, although if you go over to Hannity.com you might find an audience dumb enough to nod along.

 

[JasperL]

The claim in this case is that the termination of a human life is a religious act. If you’re going to frame abortion as a religious act then just call it what it is.

No, what the court ruled as I understand it is when "life" begins is a religious belief, and just because your 'belief' is life begins the very moment an egg is fertilized doesn't mean the 'state' should compel all others with different religious beliefs to adopt yours, as a matter of law.