Jewish women challenging Kentucky abortion ban, say it violates their religious freedom

A law should not infringe on the rights of a faith. That is what people have been arguing for a long time Christians and it should also apply to Jewish people.

I really like when other religions flog the thumper scum with the "freedom of religion" whip.

"The lawsuit specifies that under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth."

This is simply, logically, and scientifically, not true.

It is also not logically and scientifically true, that it is a person at conception.

The point here is that one faith is putting its values on another's.

Another point is....Jewish law therefore permits abortion after viability.

Once again, we see the so-called Christian majority tramping on the rights of others with different faiths

The point here is that one faith is putting its values on another's.

Where is this?  It is the existing law now not a viewpoint.

Where is this?  It is the existing law now not a viewpoint.

It's all fantasy, projection and simplistic stereotyping.  There's nothing religious about the law in question and there's no rational argument that there is. 

The law was made in accordance with what the governors of some states wanted, without regard to how other faiths believe.

No, it doesn't.

I live in Arkansas and we have people of all faiths...but do the bible thumpers in Little Rock give a shit? Fuck no! Most of them think all people should be Christians if you want to live in this state.

Funny how they are all arm in arm with the Jews until they can think of another way of screwing them over

It's all fantasy, projection and simplistic stereotyping. 

Then why is abortion illegal in some states? As for stereotyping, I do believe that the church has been one of the biggest proponents against pro-choice. Are you going to tell me that this isn't true?

There's nothing religious about the law in question and there's no rational argument that there is. 

Again, then why is abortion illegal in some states?

The law 

What law? 

 was made in accordance with what the governors of some states wanted, without regard to how other faiths believe.

Kentucky laws are legislated not based on faith.

What law? 

You tell me. Can women get abortions in Kentucky?

Kentucky laws are legislated not based on faith.

That is not what the gov of that state is trying to do.

Funny how they are all arm in arm with the Jews until they can think of another way of screwing them over

Exactly.

Another point is....Jewish law therefore permits abortion after viability.

Most rational Jews follow the science, and most abortions happen in the first trimester.

Then why is abortion illegal in some states?

Because a legislature elected by the people of the state enacted laws making it so.  That's how we get laws.

As for stereotyping, I do believe that the church has been one of the biggest proponents against pro-choice.

If by "the Church" do you mean the Catholic Church?  About 10% of the citizens of Kentucky are members. Jewish people make up 13% of New York City.  The Jewish faith opposes  murder. Does that make it illegal for New York City to outlaw murder?

But who cares?  Religions of all denominations are for and against certain things. The idea that because a church favors a policy or doesn't somehow makes it unconstitutional is preposterous. The Church opposes immigration laws. Better start deporting everyone lest the Church's policies are followed! Try making that argument in Court. 

gain, then why is abortion illegal in some states?

Again, because we live in a federal republic where citizens of states vote for representatives who enact laws, including on abortion. 

You tell me. 

No, you tell me.  You made the comment.  What law are you referring to in your comment 2.1.5?

The law was made in accordance with what the governors of some states wanted,

I am not aware of other governors making laws for other states much less their own.  Most states have a legislative branch for making law.

Can women get abortions in Kentucky?

Apparently not so what is your point about faith have to do with it?

That is not what the gov of that state is trying to do.

Perhaps, but the existing law in regards to your article is not based on faith.  So your point is moot.

So laws are enacted by legislature against a majority opinion....Yet it is because they were elected that they get to make laws...

Just because someone was elected doesn't mean they get to make any law they want...

Not based on faith? Who in the world do you think was pushing for these laws? Atheists?

e enacted by legislature against a majority opinion.

Well no.  It takes a majority to pass a law.  If a majority oppose a law, they can vote in people to change it. 

ust because someone was elected doesn't mean they get to make any law they want...

Well, yeah that's kind of how representative democracy works. Once elected a representative can vote for any law he or she chooses. 

No kidding. Yep, damn the torpedoes and go with a minority.

Funny you seem to be saying that once elected it doesn't matter what the constituents want, it is up to what the rep wants...

Funny you seem to be saying that once elected it doesn't matter what the constituents want, it is up to what the rep wants...

That is exactly what he is saying.

Atheists?

Sure, do they not vote for their representatives? About 47% of Kentucky citizens are not affiliated with any church.

This article is about bashing Christians not about abortion rights.  

The Jewish community needs to argue the suit based on their own merits, apparently the author doesn't have any to articulate.

Can women get abortions in Kentucky?

Apparently not so what is your point about faith have to do with it?

So why are women not allowed to get abortions in Kentucky?

Perhaps, but the existing law in regards to your article is not based on faith.  So your point is moot.

Then what is it based on? 

I'm beginning to think some of these people have not read the seed

Me too and I find it very frustrating. 

Can women get abortions in Kentucky?

Apparently not so what is your point about faith have to do with it?

So why are women not allowed to get abortions in Kentucky?

You don't know how laws are enacted?

Perhaps, but the existing law in regards to your article is not based on faith.  So your point is moot.

Then what is it based on? 

Based on a vote by the representatives of the state and then signed by the Governor for most states.  Some states the law will still be enacted without the Governor's signature. You can Google to get Kentucky's process for enacting a law.  Do I really need to explain this to you?

Me too and I find it very frustrating. 

Me too.

You don't know how laws are enacted?

Yes I do. The state legislature voted for this.

Based on a vote by the representatives of the state and then signed by the Governor for most states.  Some states the law will still be enacted without the Governor's signature. You can Google to get Kentucky's process for enacting a law.  Do I really need to explain this to you?

After that snark, please do not address me anymore.

[Deleted]

Another point is....Jewish law therefore permits abortion after viability.

So I take it you're making the case NOT to base our nations laws on religious beliefs, right?

"No kidding. Yep, damn the torpedoes and go with a minority. Funny you seem to be saying that once elected it doesn't matter what the constituents want, it is up to what the rep wants..."

That's quite trumpian

Most rational Jews follow the science, and most abortions happen in the first trimester.

Most isn't all. How do you determine who is rational, and what exactly do you base your decision on?

Are you advocating that they should be allowed to abort up until the day of expected delivery?

This is simply, logically, and scientifically, not true.

It's about what the religion says. Why should one religion have say over another?

Another point is....Jewish law therefore permits abortion after viability.

So? According to the Jewish faith, it's not a human being. According to the law, it's not yet a person.

Until birth and the cord is cut and it breaths on it;s own it is only potential

It’s kind of ridiculous the way pro-life people want to say abortion is against God, but also want to ignore these words from Genesis:

then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. - Genesis 2:7

Guess we’re just going to skip the part where a person becomes a living being when they start breathing air?

Well said.

Does that whole only become a person on the first breath count for everyone or just babies made from dust and not knit in your mothers womb? Just want to be sure.

also, how did God know Jeremiah before he breathed air? 

So many questions.

rd God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lif

So anyone God didn't personally breath air into isn't alive?  

What a strange passage to apply to all humans. 

So anyone God didn't personally breath air into isn't alive?  

So a fertilized egg is a person?

What a strange passage to apply to all humans. 

Exactly very strange, life isn't a circle but steps and until you cross the threshold, you aren't alive.  Before travel through the birth canal you are nothing and afterwards, everything changes, almost like magic.  I'm not sure what means for those like my daughter, delivered by Cesarean. Perhaps she wasn't a person until cut out of my wife,  

o a fertilized egg is a person?

Do you think its a gopher? I don't believe in magical thinking, so I don't believe it miraculously transforms into a human at a politically convenient time. It's a human all the way, its just a question of when you want to start feeling guilty about killing it. 

Treating the Bible like a science text is a fool’s errand, but people do it all the same.

What a strange passage to apply to all humans. 

Yeah, a lot of people are in the habit of applying passages to all people. Context is irrelevant. Metaphor and myth are irrelevant.

Until they aren’t. 

People who want to say, “public policy should be [X] because the Bible sez so” need to have their noses pushed into all of scripture.

Agree, today, you shouldn't need the Bible to decide when you think that an embryo is deserving of legal protections. 

Aren’t you doing that? It’s not alive until it breaths air, God doesn’t breath life at every birth. So was that first breath enough? What about Eve? 
I don’t think abortion is right, but I also don’t believe it is up to me to make choices for anyone else. But to deny that you are ending a human life is ridiculous, it can literally be nothing else but a human, not a tree, a frog or a cat. It is 100% human.

“…but I also don’t believe it is up to me to make choices for anyone else.”

The bottom line. 

Agree, so much hypocrisy. It’s okay to abort your child, but you can’t do drugs while pregnant. Is it your body your choice?

Again, the solution at this point is simple, move or elect people who will change the law.

People who want to say, “public policy should be [X] because the Bible sez so” need to have their noses pushed into all of scripture.

Isn’t that what this lawsuit is about.  Just a different faith and book. 

Aren’t you doing that?

No. It’s not my point of view. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of using the Bible to claim abortion should be illegal on the grounds that life begins at conception. 

My personal view is that I just don’t know what the right answer is to the question of abortion, so I’m hesitant to legislate it too harshly. I also have empathy and compassion for the difficulties of women struggling with unwanted pregnancy - or health challenges even with a planned pregnancy.

It is 100% human.

So is my thumb, and it’s more developed than any embryo. No one thinks the state should force me to save it, though. On the other hand, if I lose my thumb, maybe I’m no longer 100% human.

Well your zipper just got harder to operate!

I agree, not my choice to make for others, I understand both sides. 

The difference is in the nature of state action with respect to the 1st Amendment. If the state allows abortion, it isn’t interfering with anyone’s free exercise of religion. If an individual’s religion prohibits abortion, they don’t have to get one. Their freedom is not threatened.

But if the state prohibits abortion, while a person’s religion supports it, then the state ends up violating the right to free exercise of religion.

There’s been a lot of gray area about this kind of thing in the law. SCOTUS held in Oregon (Employment Division) v Smith that Free Exercise had to give way to what it called “generally applicable laws.” This freaked a lot of people out and inspired both state and federal laws that attempted to protect religious interests, with mixed success.

But if the state prohibits abortion, while a person’s religion supports it, then the state ends up violating the right to free exercise of religion.

not all the faith laws fall under or protected by the 1st amendment. 

reading the article it seems they are stating they want to strike down the current statue not receive an exemption for religious beliefs.  Forcing their Jewish Law on public law.

I imagine they are going for a SCOTUS case. 

If you look at the article that's the seed for this, there is this line...

"My freedom to practice my religion has been stolen. Kentucky's abortion laws are cruel and they must be overturned," said Lisa Sobel, one of the plaintiffs.

I really don't understand that line, it's like she's saying that Jewish religion mandates abortion.    This will be interesting to watch but I have a hard time seeing where this will win.  It' kind of like a Catholic taking a state that allows abortion to court for murder because her religion says it is.  

It is certainly not a person when it is a bunch of cells at 12 weeks. There is no magical thinking there. It is a scientific fact. I would never kill anything. Are you implying I would?

transforms into a human at a politically convenient time

This is not a political article. 

In the Jewish faith, there is a belief in the soul not being present until birth, so not through the birth canal, but a breath of air.

It's just as magical as a fertilized egg being a person.

This is the problem when we allow religion to dictate law.

I don’t think abortion is right, but I also don’t believe it is up to me to make choices for anyone else. But to deny that you are ending a human life is ridiculous

Human is not the same as a person. It is most certainly not a person in the first 12 weeks, which is when most abortions are done.

"Isn’t that what this lawsuit is about.  Just a different faith and book." 

Aren't you lucky the majority of citizens in your State are probably Christian/Catholic.  What if the majority were Jewish and Muslim and the controlling majority of lawmakers were Jewish and Muslim.  I could hear the screams all the way to here if a law were passed in your State outlawing the purchase and sale of pork products and the importing of same.  Just a hypothetical, but it seems to be okay from what I've been reading from the comments of some here. 

Forcing their Jewish Law on public law.

What are they forcing? They are seeking their own freedom.

it's like she's saying that Jewish religion mandates abortion

Not really. It’s more like saying that her religion affirms her freedom to do a certain thing. The law takes that freedom away.

If you can point to where this law in Kentucky uses any religious text that would be great.  That it is based on faith is nonsense.

And I would ask for my pork to have a religious exemption in the text not force my belief on others.

Please provide why you believe Christians have a controlling majority in that state.  If they did, how did abortion ever become legal in that state?  

They are forcing their religious belief on public law that does not reference any faith.

Not really. It’s more like saying that her religion affirms her freedom to do a certain thing. The law takes that freedom away.

Exactly. 

Agree to disagree.  To me it reads more along the lines when she says that her freedom to practice her religion has been stolen, it reads as if abortion is a right in the Jewish religion.  And that's just not true.  Jewish religion does not prevent an abortion nor does it state that having an abortion is wrong, but her freedom to practice her religion does not rely on her ability to have an abortion.

It will be fought out in the courts but I do not see this case as a winning case.  Now had she said that the abortion ban shows a bias and favors Christianity over her faith she might have a better argument.  But her freedom to practice her religion has not been impacted as her having an abortion is not central to the practice of her religion.

Not really. It’s more like saying that her religion affirms her freedom to do a certain thing. The law takes that freedom away.

That isn’t correct.  Faith laws do not supersede public law.  I don’t believe it has been established by law that her freedom has been restricted in that State.  Religion does not dictate freedoms.

but her freedom to practice her religion does not rely on her ability to have an abortion.

And how does serving a gay person stops a person from practicing her religion? 

It doesn't which is why there are laws in place for that and several lawsuits which have been lost by the person who refused to serve said gay person.  I actually think you are arguing my point with this.  The person who is saying they cannot serve a gay person due to religious reasons is just wrong and they are wrongly stating to force them to do the service is preventing them from following their religion.  That's been proven wrong in courts already.

Problem is a law or a religion doesn't prevent bigots from the town square.

I think the matter of whether or not there was religious text used was well answered in other comments here. 

"And I would ask for my pork to have a religious exemption in the text not force my belief on others."

Good for you, so why was there no religious exemption provided in the Kentucky law?

I think the matter of whether or not there was religious text used was well answered in other comments here. 

yes, there is no text in regard to any faith.

"And I would ask for my pork to have a religious exemption in the text not force my belief on others." Good for you, so why was there no religious exemption provided in the Kentucky law?

Perhaps there is.  Seems the suit is not asking for that.  They want the law declared unconstitutional. 

It doesn't which is why there are laws in place for that and several lawsuits which have been lost by the person who refused to serve said gay person. 

What are you talking about? SCOTUS ruled in the bakery's favor:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

reuters

So no, if this is OK, then so is a Jewish exemption.

Always with the snark and the smartassery.  I guess you think that's cute.  

No, it's not ok.  And the SCOTUS ruling was not really a victory for the baker and discrimination.  SCOTUS ruled  (from your article, bolding is mine)

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

This fight is not over.  It will be fought in lower courts for a number of years more before it makes it's way back to SCOTUS.  Hopefully the next time a ruling on the actual issue of the case will be decided rather than pushing it back to the lower courts on a technicality. 

And I stand by what I said earlier on the abortion case. Her freedom to practice her religion has not been impacted as her having an abortion is not central to the practice of her religion.

It’s okay to abort your child, but you can’t do drugs while pregnant. Is it your body your choice?

If you intend to carry that fetus to term and you do drugs you may wind up with a very sick baby who more than likely will end up being taken care of by the state.

Show responsibility if you don't get an abortion!

Lol, oh NOW those things are important? 

What a fucking surprise, as soon as non christians want to exercise their freedom of religion we need to not be retarded and actually think about it. 

Dollars to donuts there are Democrats funding this lawsuit and providing legal council.

My question is where were these women before the ban went into place? Kentucky had abortion laws before Roe was overturned. Fairly strict ones in fact.

en.wikipedia .

There were laws in Kentucky about abortion by 1900, including ones with therapeutic exceptions. These laws were designed to protect women from people offering unsafe abortions. In 1998, the state passed legislation that required clinics to have an abortion clinic license if they wanted to operate. By the early 2010s, members of the Kentucky Legislature were trying to ban abortion in almost all cases and had also introduced early abortion bans . Prior to 2019, Kentucky law prohibited abortions after week 22. This changed when the state legislature passed a law that moved the prohibition to week 6 in the early part of the year. In that year, 57% of people in Kentucky said abortion should be "illegal in all or most cases." A bill passed and made effective in April 2022 lowered the threshold to 15 weeks, the second most restrictive limit in effect in the United States behind Texas , and introduced regulations that made abortion illegal until it was blocked in federal court. Effective upon Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overruling of Roe v. Wade , Kentucky's trigger law went into effect, prohibiting abortion except as necessary to prevent possible death or risk of permanent injury to the pregnant woman. June 30, 2022, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Mitch Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the state's abortion ban pending further hearings to determine if the ban violates the Kentucky Constitution . This order temporarily allowed both of Kentucky's elective abortion providers, which are both located in Louisville , to temporarily resume elective abortions. ^[2] Kentucky's trigger law banning abortions was temporarily reinstated August 1, 2022 by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. ^{[3] [4]} The number of abortion clinics has declined over time, with eleven abortion clinics in 1982, nine in 1992, two in 2002, and one in 2017. There were 4,923 legal abortions in 2014, and 4,585 in 2015.

22 weeks prior to 2019 sure as hell isn't "at birth".  Why weren't they filing a lawsuit then? Weren't their rights being violated? 

It is a free country (unless the Democrats continue their fascist power grab). If you don't like the laws of the state you live in, then leave. It is simple as that. There is nothing stopping anyone. 

Also, since when do Democrats give a shit about anyone's religious rights? Outside of Muslims that is.

Dollars to donuts there are Democrats funding this lawsuit and providing legal council.

Why would you say that? I'm not a Dem and if I lived in one of those states, I sure would be doing this.

22 weeks prior to 2019 sure as hell isn't "at birth".  Why weren't they filing a lawsuit then? Weren't their rights being violated? 

Because most rational Jews also follow the science, and most abortions happen in the first trimester, so there was no effect on them.

It is a free country (unless the Democrats continue their fascist power grab). If you don't like the laws of the state you live in, then leave. It is simple as that. There is nothing stopping anyone. 

Power grab you say? These governors made the decision on their own. I don't recall a vote in any state. Why should citizens be forced to leave because governors are making decisions on their own bias? That is the ultimate power grab.

Also, since when do Democrats give a shit about anyone's religious rights? Outside of Muslims that is.

Wow... what an ignorant comment.

I'm not a Dem

Nope, you're a Bernie Sanders independent siding with the Democrats 95-99% of the time. 

Is this pick on Perrie Day?

You don't know anything about her so why don't you just STFU

Wow, are you are a mind reader now? I personally don't agree with much of what Bernie says or wants. I side with the dems on social issues and the repubs on fiscal. 

So I hope we can put that to bed.

Nope, you're a Bernie Sanders independent siding with the Democrats 95-99% of the time.

I've known Perrie on this forum for a long time and she is not even close to being a liberal. 

I side with the dems on social issues and the repubs on fiscal. 

Fair enough, but in order to be a liberal you have to be liberal on fiscal issues. There is no such thing as a liberal that agrees with tax cuts for the rich and all that jazz. 

I'm not saying you do, but you are not a liberal. They call you that out of frustration because they cant handle your arguments. 

I'm not saying you do, but you are not a liberal. They call you that out of frustration because they cant handle your arguments. 

I realize that I am not a "liberal" and I realize that people like to pigeonhole me.

They call you that out of frustration because they cant handle your arguments. 

Pretty much.

You don't know anything about her so why don't you just STFU

I probably know as much about her as you do.

why don't you just STFU

[Deleted]

SHE'S a kiddie in the Peanut Gallery?  Note the labels under her avatar and yours.  

[Deleted]  what's your point? Perrie is very cool and very nice, I have actually not seen her really go at someone a single time on this site for the past few... shit, years lol. She doesn't deserve to be disrespected.

[Deleted]

[Removed for context]

I wonder how you get away with comments like this.

[He didn't get away with it.]

22 weeks prior to 2019 sure as hell isn't "at birth".  Why weren't they filing a lawsuit then? Weren't their rights being violated? 

Odd isn't it?

Never pass up a chance to do some Christian bashing I guess.  

Never pass up a chance to do some Christian bashing I guess. 

Who is Christian bashing? This is about a minority religious group wanting to live by their beliefs. Feels more like antisemitism. 

wow..some people see Christian bashers like that little kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people

Tell me about it.

Who is Christian bashing? This is about a minority religious group wanting to live by their beliefs. Feels more like antisemitism. 

Then why this comment...

The point here is that one faith is putting its values on another's.

Then why this comment...

The point here is that one faith is putting its values on another's.

Just a guess, because it's true.

Just a guess, because it's true

yeah propaganda usually results in “just a guess”.

yeah propaganda usually results in “just a guess”.

Seems I hit the nail on the head.

wow..some people see Christian bashers like that little kid in Sixth Sense saw dead people

This is about a minority religious group wanting to live by their beliefs.

I do believe his point is :

Why didn;t the same folks file earlier when they couldn't get abortions past viability?

Apparently Jews wanting to do Jewish stuff is christian bashing. Like that line of thinking has never had negative ramifications. 

I do believe his point is : Why didn;t the same folks file earlier when they couldn't get abortions past viability?

Probably because it was never really an issue before. 

Were they allowed to get abortions on demand in the third trimester before?

When the Jewish want to blame Christians it certainly is.

This lawsuit served its purpose. It generated some headlines.  

But it's laughably idiotic  as a legal  theory and demonstrates no understanding of any of the issues involved.  

The statute itself is not based on the "Christian religion".  Any claim that it is is simply a lie.  It's based on science.   It's as dumb as claiming laws against murder are also based on the "Christian religion" and that it's unconstitutional to punish Hindus for murdering people. 

Moreover, the last time I looked, there is no rule in Judaism that mandates women get abortions and have a sacred duty to do so.  That would be a starting point for a legitimate free exercise  claim. 

The statute itself is not based on the "Christian religion".  Any claim that it is is simply a lie.  It's based on science.   

Show me the science that says an embryo is a baby.

Moreover, the last time I looked, there is no rule in Judaism that mandates women get abortions and have a sacred duty to do so. 

What are you talking about Sean? It is what is protected under Jewish law, and this is protected.

Show me the science that says an embryo is a baby.

Lol. Talk about your strawmen. Show me the part of the statute that says "we are following the rules of the "Christian Church" (whatever that is) and  abortion is therefore  banned because of what God said."  

It is what is protected under Jewish law, and this is protected.

That's not how free exercise works. You have to show you are being prevented from performing a religious duty or being forced to violate a tenant of your religion. Claiming a religion allows you do something  isn't a free exercise claim.  One could claim that their religion doesn't prohibit gambling. That doesn't give anyone a right to gamble in a state that prohibits it. 

What Jewish law says about abortion is just as worthless as arguing a Constiitional claim based on Catholic doctrine. 

Lol. Talk about your strawmen. Show me the part of the statute that says "we are following the rules of the "Christian Church" (whatever that is) and  abortion is therefore  banned because of what God said."  

Then why the ban?

Claiming a religion allows you do something  isn't a free exercise claim.

Of course it is. It is Jewish law, just like Christians claim that if someone is gay, they are protected from offering service because it is a law in the OT.

What Jewish law says about abortion is just as worthless as arguing a Constiitional claim based on Catholic doctrine. 

Again, then why is this even an issue? Choice gives people the option, yet some don't want you to have that option. And if it isn't faith based then the states' leg are making laws based on their personal morality and that is just as wrong.

Then why the ban?

Because a majority of the legislature passed a law. 

It is Jewish law, just like Christians claim that if someone is gay, 

No, not at alll.  Jewish law doesn't teach mandatory abortions. That's a free exercise claim. Where you are either forced to do or prevented from doing something that directly contradicts a fundamental religious belief. The only way someone can make a free exercise argument about abortion is if a law was passed forcing people to have abortions, or a law that  preventing people who are required by their religion to have an abortion.  Jewish law, as you put it, holds that abortion is permissible. Those are not remotely the same things. 

So unless you can claim that Jewish people have a religious duty to have abortions, then they have no free exercise claim. 

n the states' leg are making laws based on their personal morality 

That's what laws are. It's shocking to me people don't understand that laws simply reflect the moral choices of legislatures.  What are subjective claims about "fairness" other than moral arguments?  The argument against slavery and for the 13th Amendment was explicitly based on morality. Do you oppose the 13th Amendment? 

Because a majority of the legislature passed a law. 

I know the obvious, but why did they do that? 

So unless you can claim that Jewish people have a religious duty to have abortions, then they have no free exercise claim. 

I'm sorry Sean, I don't see in the OT or the NT, where it is prohibited to not cover birth control, or serve gay people, and yet many Christian companies claim that to do so violates their religious beliefs, correct? On the other hand, this is actually stated as a right in the OT.

It's shocking to me people don't understand that laws simply reflect the moral choices of legislatures.

No what is shocking is that these legislatures are not doing the will of the people.

The argument against slavery and for the 13th Amendment was explicitly based on morality. Do you oppose the 13th Amendment? 

A strawman if ever I read one.

but why did they do that? 

Because they want to protect life I assume. Maybe they wanted to get reelected.  I'm not a mind reader. The motivations of individual legislators is irrelevant. 

m sorry Sean, I don't see in the OT or the N

I'm not aware that all Christian religions believe the same things relating to either the OT or NT.  It's simply not true to believe that Christian sects take the same approach to their beliefs or place equal value on scripture.

his is actually stated as a right in the OT.

Where, specifically, does it say abortion is a right in the OT? I've never heard that before.

king is that these legislatures are not doing the will of the peo

Then they will be voted out and a new law will be passed. 

A strawman if ever I read one

No, its not.  Its a question to see if you actually believe what you said about opposing laws that have a basis in morals. Or does that just apply to those you differ with?

It's interesting to see people argue against laws based on morality by making morally based argument though.   

The statute itself is not based on the "Christian religion".  Any claim that it is is simply a lie.  It's based on science.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that the pro-life movement in this country is not driven by Christian conservatives who are motivated by their religious beliefs.

The pro-life position is a moral one. It assigns value to something - so much value that the state has an interest in protecting it over the choices of a grown woman. I don’t know of any particular scientific work that compels that policy as a necessity.

The pro-life position is a moral one. It assigns value to something - so much value that the state has an interest in protecting it over the choices of a grown woman. I don’t know of any particular scientific work that compels that policy as a necessity.

That is certainly accurate.

s disingenuous to suggest that the pro-life movement in this country is not driven by Christian conservatives who are motivated by their religious beliefs.

Its disingenuous to suggest that pro-life movement is simply the Christian Church passing laws as well. There are plenty of people who are pro-life who aren't Christians or motivated by religious beliefs.

What matters is the law itself,  not the varied and ambiguous reasons people may have for supporting it.  Which other generally applicable laws are suspect because a majority of Christians support them? Should there be a religious test at the ballot box to prevent Christians from voting to ensure they don't vote for policies that their church might support as well? 

I don’t know of any particular scientific work that compels that policy as a necessity.

Good thing no one claims that there is!  What scientific work do you believe dictates at which stage of human development it's permissible to take human life?  Development lasts from conception to early 20s, where's the scientifically dictated point of delineation.?

I'm not aware science answers those sort of questions so I'm curious to read up on what science commands. 

The pro-life position is a moral one.

As if the pro-choice position isn't.   

There are plenty of people who are pro-life who aren't Christians or motivated by religious beliefs.

Not nearly enough to matter in the 50 year push to overturn Roe v Wade , in anti-abortion laws in the South, or in the fight over Supreme Court justices. Without Christian conservatives, none of that happens.

Good thing no one claims that there is!

OK, well you’re the one who claimed the law was based on science. These are your words:

The statute itself is not based on the "Christian religion".  Any claim that it is is simply a lie.  It's based on science.

That’s why we’re talking about it.

I’d honestly like to see some support for the idea that anti-abortion laws anywhere in America (much less this particular one) are based on science.

You said any claim that the law was based on religion is a lie, but that’s exactly what a Kentucky legislator said was motivating her.

Republican Rep. Norma Kirk-McCormick, of Inez, said abortion is against her religious beliefs. 

“Every day we convene in this body, we open with the pledge and with prayer and we stand here in this body before a sign that says ‘In God We Trust,’” she said. 

“The abortion of a baby is plain wrong and I pray that God would have mercy on anyone that would take the life of a child. There’s no mercy on that baby in abortion.”

So don’t tell me the law is based in science. It’s possible that a government could create an anti-abortion bill based on science, but clearly at least some of the Kentucky legislators responsible for this particular law were motivated by religion.

Without Christian conservatives, none of that happens.

Without Christians conservatives, the Constitution  doesn't happen. We live in a majority Christian country, if we get rid of laws as religiously based because Christians support them, we would have few laws left. 

el l  you’re the one who claimed the law was based on science. These are your words:

Yes, because the statute uses science to describe what is prohibited. Where is the religious language in the statute? 

- abortion laws anywhere in America (much less this particular one) are based on science.

I don't know what to tell you. If you want to argue that believing life begins at conception  isn't based on science, there's nothing to be said. 

  claim that the law was based on religion is a lie, but that’s exactly what a  Kentucky legislator  said was motivating her.

That doesn't square. I also said the individual motivations don't matter. What matters is the text of the  law itself since that is what actually  governs us and not the feelings of individuals. The law  itself is indisputably   not based on religion and no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that it is. Cherry picking the motivations of individual legislators is a pointless exercise in futility. 

So don’t tell me the law is based in science

you would have a point if the random quotes you cite actually appear in the law.  They don't.  You still haven't provided any evidence based on the text of the law itself. 

but clearly at least some of the Kentucky legislators responsible for this particular law were motivated by religion.

So what? People are motivated by religion or their antipathy to it do all sorts of things. If a legislator  cites their Christian beliefs to support increased food stamp allowances, does that make the food stamp law an improper religious law? 

Its disingenuous to suggest that pro-life movement is simply the Christian Church passing laws as well. There are plenty of people who are pro-life who aren't Christians or motivated by religious beliefs.

So if Jewish Americans got together with some vegetarians and vegans and maybe even PETA and tried to ban bacon, ham and all pork products, it would be disingenuous to suggest that Jewish people were trying to force their religious beliefs on others?

if we get rid of laws as religiously based because Christians support them, we would have few laws left. 

I didn’t suggest we should get rid of any laws on that basis.

Where is the religious language in the statute? 

Are you introducing a new standard? No one said anything about the language of the statute. But if that matters to you, here is a link to the text of the law. There’s nothing in there about science, either.

apps.legislature.ky

Like many laws, it defines some terms. Specifically, “fertilization,” “pregnant,” and “unborn human being.” The law cites to no scientific sources. The legislators are not scientists. The law also does not specify the motivation for the law, although that is a common feature of many laws. 

So what evidence do we have to tell us what the law is based on? You have none. I have a quote from an actual legislator telling us that her religious faith motivated her vote. So for her, at least, the law is based on that.

If you want to argue that believing life begins at conception  isn't based on science

I didn’t say anything about when I think life begins. I only responded to your erroneous, unsupported claim that the law is based on science.

you would have a point if the random quotes you cite actually appear in the law

There is nothing random about it. It’s a quote from an actual legislator who voted for the law. It’s literally the only evidence either one of us has supplied other than my link to the law itself. Your assumption that science is the basis for the law is far more random. It appears that it was only your own feeling.

If a legislator  cites their Christian beliefs to support increased food stamp allowances, does that make the food stamp law an improper religious law? 

I didn’t say the law was improper, either. You sure are getting a lot of mileage out of trying to change the subject or argue straw men at me.

Curious hypothetical. I confess I’m not seeing the point of it, though.

LOL.  I posted my comment about that above before I read yours.

Curious hypothetical. I confess I’m not seeing the point of it, though.

Rightwing conservative Christians who have been pushing for overturning Roe seem to be claiming that because there are the relative handful of those "who are pro-life who aren't Christians or motivated by religious beliefs", that means it isn't tens of millions of religious conservatives trying to impose their religious beliefs on others.

My hypothetical takes a large religious groups belief and puts them with a smaller group who all have their own reasons for being against pork, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a religious group trying to force their religious belief on others through the passage of laws.

Just because a large group of religious believers gets a token non-believer to join them doesn't mean they're not trying to force their religious beliefs on others through the passage of laws violating the separation of church and State.

Don't want to eat pork because of your religious beliefs? Then don't eat pork.

Don't want to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs? Then don't get an abortion.

That's freedom. That's separation of church and State. No one is forced to get an abortion, and no one is forced to eat pork. There are no anti-abortionists having their rights violated.

I agree with that.

didn’t suggest we should get rid of any laws on that basis.

But that is the objection to this statute being argued in this thread.  

No one said anything about the language of the statute. B

Oh.. I thought the statute was the topic of this seed.  

The law cites to no scientific sources. The legislators are not scientist

That's some strawman. I'm still waiting for the religious language in the statute.  

o what evidence do we have to tell us what the law is based on?

The actual language in the statute. As you've concerned, there's nothing religious in the actual law. 

 It’s a quote from an actual legislator who voted for the law

Again, so what? Motivations of legislators are simply not relevant. If one legislator voted for it because he wants more black people, does that make the law racist? Imagining 100s of people all vote the same way for the same reason is silly. 

It appears that it was only your own feeling.

No, I read the statute. It doesn't use religious terms, it uses scientific terms to describe what actions are prohibited. 

 didn’t say the law was improper, either. 

Great we agree. 

ould be disingenuous to suggest that Jewish people were trying to force their religious beliefs on others?

you can suggest it all you want. As a legal argument, it's silly. 

Oh.. I thought the statute was the topic of this seed. 

It is. But the topic of our little exchange has been whether or not the law is based on science. That was your claim, to which I have been responding, and you have failed to support, in spite of multiple requests.

That's some strawman.

No it isn't. You said the law was based on science. If so, it would be reasonable to look for citations to relevant scientific work or that the law may have been crafted by scientists who are experts on the topic. 

Motivations of legislators are simply not relevant.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly looked at the situational context and motivations of legislators when considering whether or not a state action runs afoul of the First Amendment. They have had a series of cases on the Ten Commandments in public spaces, for example, where sometimes they were allowed and sometimes not. When they had the government saying the Commandments were placed for religious reasons, they disallowed it - even if the government then came up with a secular justification.

Here, we have a government official stating explicitly that the reason for the law is based on religion.

No, I read the statute. It doesn't use religious terms, it uses scientific terms to describe what actions are prohibited.

Science is a process, not a list of terms. If I say God wants me to go to the moon in a rocket, I don't get to call it "Science" just because I used the words "moon" and "rocket."

Great we agree. 

No we don't. I didn't say I disapprove of the law, and I didn't say I approve of it, either. You have a real problem with attaching meaning to my words that I didn't put there.

, to which I have been responding, and you have failed to support, in spite of multiple requests.

I kind of feel like you are looking at the ocean and demanding proof of water exists. 

Is fertilization a scientific, or religious concept? What about the  zona pellucida of the human female ovum? 

We can go line by line through the statute  and you won't find any religious language. Or maybe I missed the language claiming life begins when "God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being".  If the law is based on religion, where is it in the statute?  By all means point out the scriptural language in the statute that I'm apparently missing. 

rt has repeatedly looked at the situational context and motivations of legislators when considering whether or not a state action runs afoul of the First Amendmen

The Lemon Test? Doesn't apply to free exercise claims and is not even good law.,  

But if you know a case where the Court invalidated a generally applicable statute because of the supposed religious motivations of a legislator, I'd be interested to see it. 

vernment official stating explicitly that the reason for the law is based on religion.

You keep conflating the motivation of an induvial legislator with the text of the law itself. I never once claimed that not a single person was motivated by their religion. That would be silly. As we see, people support abortion based on religious dogma. I'm discussing the law itself because the actual motivations of every person who voted (not just the publicly stated ones, but the actual one that drove the decision) are unknowable. Claiming one legislator speaks for all is simply silly. 

You keep conflating the motivation of an induvial legislator with the text of the law itself.

No. What I have been doing is addressing the claim of what the law is based on. I think the fair thing might be to concede that we might not know what it is based on. I also concede that while my evidence supports a religious motivation, it is only one person. 

I also think it would be honest if you admitted that there is no specific evidence that the legislature looked to science to formulate this law or decide on its passage.

The Lemon Test? Doesn't apply to free exercise claims and is not even good law.,   But if you know a case where the Court invalidated a generally applicable statute because of the supposed religious motivations of a legislator, I'd be interested to see it.

I’ve never loved the Lemon Test, but I think claims of its demise are premature. The majority in Kennedy didn’t come right out and say they were overruling it and they distinguished the case of the praying coach from other cases. They may yet find some use for it.

The “generally applicable” standard is from Smith, as I mentioned elsewhere. Interestingly, the current Court are no fans of Smith, and the concurrence in the Fulton County case indicated they would overturn it if given a chance. In that case, the Court struck down Philadelphia’s decision not to contract with a foster care service because of its anti-lgbt policies. So, something that the city wanted to apply to everyone failed because it infringed on someone’s religious freedom.

Maybe these Jewish ladies will rely on that case when they get the Supreme Court.

That kid looks angry. What the hell does a 12 year old have to be angry about? Too early bedtime? Too many chores? No ice cream in the house? Hell, that one pisses me off all the time

His parents probably didnt let him keep any of the money he earned by ranting at his congregation. 

“That kid looks angry. What the hell does a 12 year old have to be angry about?”

And what 12 year old wears a suit? 

And what 12 year old wears a suit? 

The ones that their parents force them into one

At 12 i was playing video games, jerking off with Cheeto hands and eating chicken nuggies my mom made. WTF kind of incel is that?

It claims the state's abortion laws violate their religious freedom due to a Christian viewpoint stating that human life begins at conception.

There is no question that the pro-life movement in this country has been driven by conservative Christians holding that viewpoint and claiming that abortion makes God mad.

Curiously, abortion was well known in the ancient world and yet you don’t see either the Old or New Testament fretting over it. For over 1500 years, the Catholic Church didn’t worry much about abortion. There are even records of abortions being performed by Catholic priests. It wasn’t declared murder until 1588.

Again, well said.

abortion was well known in the ancient world and yet you don’t see either the Old or New Testament fretting over it.

23 And the priest shall write these curses on a scroll and wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He is to have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and it will enter her and cause her bitter suffering. 25 The priest shall take from her hand the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD, and bring it to the altar. 26 Then the priest is to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar; after that he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then the water that brings a curse will enter her and cause bitter suffering; her belly will swell, her thigh will shrivel, and she will become accursed among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will be unaffected and able to conceive children." - Numbers 5:23-28

I think it's pretty clear that not only did they not fret over it, they prescribed it in cases of infidelity. Also of note, why the hell didn't they have some curse potion for the man to drink to prove he wasn't unfaithful? Oh, that's right, because women were viewed as property not much more valuable than livestock.

Here's the rest of the scripture in Numbers:

29 This is the law of jealousy when a wife goes astray and defiles herself while under her husband’s authority, 30 or when a feeling of jealousy comes over a husband and he suspects his wife. He is to have the woman stand before the LORD, and the priest is to apply to her this entire law. 31The husband will be free from guilt, but the woman shall bear her iniquity.” - Numbers 5:29-31

"It claims the state's abortion laws violate their religious freedom due to a Christian viewpoint stating that human life begins at conception.The lawsuit specifies that under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth."


So I guess the people of Kentucky will have to vote on it. Oh wait....I think they already did!

So I guess the people of Kentucky will have to vote on it. Oh wait....I think they already did!

No, they didn't. They voted for representatives who then voted their party line. The majority of people in Kentucky are pro-choice.

They voted for representatives

There you go!


The majority of people in Kentucky are pro-choice.

Then the question has been answered.

Or do you believe in minority rule?  

Prior to 2019, Kentucky law prohibited abortions after week 22. This changed when the state legislature passed a law that moved the prohibition to week 6 in the early part of the year. In that year, 57% of people in Kentucky said abortion should be "illegal in all or most cases."

en.m.wikipedia

Not sure why people think the majority is pro-choice.  They should check their facts.

Not sure why people think the majority is pro-choice.  They should check their facts.

pewresearch

Should abortion be legal in all/most cases :    36%

Should abortion be illegal in all/most cases :  57%

Don't know :                                                       7%

Very good point. The majority believes in abortion WITH RESTRICTIONS.

This seed set the narrative by using what it claims is a Jewish belief that "life begins at birth." We know that many progressive democrats believe in abortion on demand, right up to the point of birth. In other words, anything short of that = anti-abortion

a Jewish belief that "life begins at birth." We know that many progressive democrats believe in abortion on demand, right up to the point of birth.

That is what they are fighting for?

That is disgusting.

They have come out of the closet.

Welcome to the nation of Gilead ladies.

Now I don't have to wonder anymore. You watch The Handmaid's Tale or you've read the book

Praise be! 

Imagine a Shamanistic Fertility cult mistaken, mistranslated and thousands of years later we debate the morality with a group of  self proclaimed Christians who claim abortion is wrong citing a god as the basis for the argument ignoring they are the spawn of a misunderstood fertility cult that took mushrooms.

Strange times.

Do we have a Transitory Exclusionary Radical Feminist among us?

Well, there is that old saying:

 ‘Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.’

Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are.’

I think it's attributed to Mark Zuckerberg.