“…an adherent of The Satanic Temple, argued her religion does not harbor the belief that conception is the beginning of life. The prerequisites, due to this belief, for an abortion procedure in Missouri are directly violating her religious freedom.” WRNews
- About
- Forum
- Account
Discussion
NewLiberal judicial activism
Aside from the ominous Satanism thing, another case of left judicial activism. The Missouri law is not predicated on the idea that conception is the beginning of life and doesn’t require anyone to acknowledge that as true. So the defendant straw manned the law and the judge went along with the farce. I’m not sure which is scarier here, the defendant or the judge.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewPlaintiff, no:?
Technically, I think the “Satanist” woman is the plaintiff, not the defendant, but agreed that this is an interesting case of legislating from the bench. One wonders how the same judge (s) would have treated an appeal asking for religious freedom not to bake a cake for a same sex mirage. I’m guessing that the religious liberty clause of the 1st Amendment would not be so well respected, to put it mildly.
The logic is interesting as well; religious liberty trumps biological reality that, yes, the embryo is indeed living from the moment of conception. A broad interpretation of this principle—that religious liberty trumps reality—could be catastrophic to the law. Not surprisingly, the judge, Thomas Newton, was appointed by Democrat Mel Carnahan.
And I’m surprised that being required to take two trips to the abbatoir didn’t suffice to get the informed consent law overturned. Other anti-infanticide laws mandating admission privileges at hospitals and the like have been overturned.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.