In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which eliminated any federal standards on abortion access. This resulted in many individual states curtailing or banning abortion rights, completely changing abortion access in many different parts of the country. Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned, Idaho completely banned abortion through its Defense of Life Act with very limited exceptions.
The Satanic Temple is a non-theistic religious organization that emphasizes humanistic values like reason, compassion, and empathy, as outlined in its Seven Tenets. The Seven Tenets serve as its guiding principles and serve as the basis for many of its rituals. The organization engages in social and political activism focusing on a variety of issues, one being reproductive rights. The Satanic Temple also has Seven Rituals for various life events, offered as alternative options for those seeking something beyond traditional religious ceremonies. One of these Seven Rituals is the Satanic Abortion Ritual. While The Satanic Abortion Ritual is not a requirement of its members, they believe fully in bodily autonomy and a woman's right to choose. In this ritual, there are religious aspects following their Seven Tenets that one must go through before, after, and during a medical or surgical abortion.
The Satanic Temple filed a lawsuit arguing that the current abortion statutes have violated The Satanic Temple’s religious freedoms, as they are not able to legally perform this ritual. The Temple stated that the Free Exercise Clause in The Constitution protects the right of female members to abort their babies in a ceremony as part of a Satanic Ritual.
Considering the facts of this case, does Idaho’s Defense of Life Act violate the Free Exercise of religion by making The Satanic Temple’s Satanic Abortion Ritual illegal?
When looking at this case, it is important to address the key issues at hand. The First Amendment protects religious groups to have unrestricted religious practice in accordance with their beliefs. However, these practices are only protected if they are not harmful. Given the context of this case, questions of whether there are overruling compelling state interests and issues of sincerity arise. In the hearing, the defendant, representing the state, argued that there is no way to verify what the Satanic Temple is putting forth about their Satanic Ritual. This is directly related to the issue of ruling on the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. In United States v. Ballard, it was unanimously determined that it is not within the government's jurisdiction to determine the truth or falsity of religious beliefs. Fundamentally, the Court is obligated to acknowledge a religious group's beliefs unless compelling evidence exists demonstrating fraudulent intentions. Due to this, the Court can not request that there must be a way to verify the Satanic Abortion Ritual. Another aspect of this case to consider is the compelling state interest. An important question arises of whether there is a compelling state interest in preventing this ritual. While abortion may be restricted and limited on a state level, it should be noted that there is no federal law banning abortion. In the precedent case, Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal the Court ruled that the government must examine individual religious freedoms and sincere practices. If there are sincere practices, there should be exceptions to laws, as long as it does not interfere with compelling state interests. This is not a case of whether or not abortion should be legal, but a case about religious freedom. When looking at the Defense of Life Act, there are exceptions demonstrating that abortion is highly restrictive but not fully banned. While these exceptions are not for religious reasons, some situations supersede the general compelling state interest. It is important to note that the Satanic Temple is not forcing its members to receive an abortion, but instead having this religious ceremony for those who chose to partake. Given all these facts, it seems as if there is not a compelling state interest in preventing this religious ritual beyond a difference of opinion on a controversial topic.
.jpeg)
Abortion is an extremely controversial topic within the United States right now. It is important to note that this is a case about violating religious freedom, rather than if abortion should be legal. In my opinion, the Satanic Temple should be allowed to perform their Satanic Abortion Ritual. It is a completely voluntary ritual that expresses the pillars of their religion. When examining minority groups, the government cannot dismiss their religious beliefs solely because they do not align with its perspectives or opinions. It is essential for the Court not to make determinations regarding the sincerity of religious groups based on aspects of their faith.
Hi Kendall!
ReplyDeleteThis piece was super interesting and I’m curious as to how it will play out. You did a great job at thoroughly explaining this case and the importance of recognizing that it is not an argument about if abortion should be legal but an argument concerning religious freedom. The precedent that you raised is important in addressing this issue, and the inability of the court to jurisdict the truth or falsity of religious beliefs is essential in cases like these, especially concerning minority religions. I agree with your holding, and I want to highlight the fact that The Satanic Temple, as a minority religion, should be treated and given the same freedoms and exceptions as if it was a majority religion. Although this practice may be viewed as strange by the public, this gives no reason to dismiss the Temple’s ceremonies if they are not harming the public or posing a threat to the state. The very voluntary and expressive nature of this religious practice leads me to believe that the Satanic Abortion Ritual of the Satanic Temple is acceptable.
This is an extremely interesting and niche case that I think is actually rather important for the future of reproductive rights. I remember in class we discussed how for many exemptions, once there has been a singular exemption made (such as medical), this allows and essentially requires a religious exemption to be permitted as well, which seems to protect the Satanic Temple's practice. I actually go further than your understanding, since I also remember how many of the Justice's strongly disagreed with the idea of 'proving' sincerity, and I think that this applies in this case as well. Members of The Satanic Temple should not have to prove sincerity, if they claim it as their religious belief. My only apprehension in this case is that the state interest to regulate seems to be paramount here, and they (if I am remembering correctly) specifically use the example of human sacrifice as an obvious limit to religious freedom, and I could see how one may construe this abortion ritual as such. So while I do agree with you, I think there are some potential issues in the court of public opinion with framing their legal argument as suh.
ReplyDeleteHi Kendall,
ReplyDeleteThis case is very interesting and complicated and I think your post about it is great! Because abortion is such a controversial topic in American politics, it really complicates how one could view this case from a religious standpoint. With the precedent you cite, I agree that the Satanic Temple’s abortion practices should be permitted even though the state of Idaho has banned it. Although some people may disagree with these practices, it is not for the public or the court to decide what is a true and important religious practice or belief. As you mentioned, no one is forced to participate in this ritual and they are conducting it in their own private ceremonies. This decision will be very important in the protection of minority religions. If the Satanic Temple is prohibited from performing this ritual, what other “unsavory” religious practices will be condemned because of a compelling state interest?
Hi Kendall,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a nice job framing this as an issue of religious freedom. I agree with you and the commenters here, the Satanic Temple should be able to practice their sincerely held religious abortion ritual. However, I think it could be challenged in one of two ways. Either, as Thomas mentioned above: it could be framed as human sacrifice (which would get into the metaphysical question of fetal rights), or could adopt a similar position to O'Connor's concurring opinion in Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith and say while the Temple may have sincere beliefs, would all the women going there too, or would it be a loophole to subvert the law? Or, argue that the people aren't medical professionals and therefore could be a danger. Again, nice post, I'm just thinking about how that state interest piece may play into the decision.
Great post on a complex topic! I agree with your points, but I also agree with Sarah as she notes the variations of state interest. While this is a matter of religious freedom as you stated, and I agree with its constitutionality, I do see the state's compelling interest in this case regarding the ritual. Ensuring the safety of individuals during this ritual is key, and I can see where the court would be concerned about the safety and proper, healthy practice of medical procedures. But, even despite this, as you emphasized, I do believe the state should allow this religious practice to happen as there is no federal ban on abortion and banning such would infringe their religious freedom and rights.
ReplyDelete