Sacrificing your unborn tissue mass to Satan

[Sparko]

No, it wasn't: the Green family premised their opposition on the false notion that some of the listed contraceptives were actually abortifacients.

But it didn't and doesn't matter: the government doesn't have to prove that a belief is non-factual, it would have to prove a belief is insincere and the bar for a government ruling which religious beliefs are sincere or insincere is very, very high.

Who cares, in other words, whether you think someone is insincere in their stated beliefs. Unless you can conclusively prove otherwise, the RFRA is the applicable standard.

-Sam

You can't use religion as an excuse to break the law though Sam. "Our religion has a storied history of sacrificing infants to our God on an altar of fire, therefore we can do that despite murder being against the law"

[Sam]

You can't use religion as an excuse to break the law though Sam. "Our religion has a storied history of sacrificing infants to our God on an altar of fire, therefore we can do that despite murder being against the law"

Well, that was the majority opinion of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia wrote that religious beliefs did not exempt people from "generally-applicable" laws. In response to Smith, numerous states passed RFRA laws that explicitly carved out a path to such exemptions, putting the onus of proof on government, not individuals, that a law was sufficiently necessary and narrowly targeted such that its application to individuals didn't infringe on their religious beliefs.

In the case of Smith, future RFRA laws protected the use of peyote during religious ceremony, even though possession and distribution of peyote is illegal. You absolutely can use religion to "break" the law, given that all 50 states (by memory) and the federal government have RFRA statutes. Which laws can be broken remains a question, as RFRA laws do not, by design, specify which statutes aren't necessary or narrowly-targeted enough to override a religious exemption. Murder is a case where the state would have a clear compelling interest and laws against homicide are narrowly targeted. Abortion — which hasn't historically entailed homicide in federal or state law — would be a more interesting test case (though we'd more likely see such a case brought by an assortment of interested religious groups than by one specific clinic).

But this is why RFRA laws are bad, any road: they end up carving out a pathway for state-approved religious exercise while, in practice, denying the same pathway to less sympathetic religious exercises for no better reason than a district judge or Samuel Alito doesn't want to.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Well, that was the majority opinion of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia wrote that religious beliefs did not exempt people from "generally-applicable" laws. In response to Smith, numerous states passed RFRA laws that explicitly carved out a path to such exemptions, putting the onus of proof on government, not individuals, that a law was sufficiently necessary and narrowly targeted such that its application to individuals didn't infringe on their religious beliefs.

In the case of Smith, future RFRA laws protected the use of peyote during religious ceremony, even though possession and distribution of peyote is illegal. You absolutely can use religion to "break" the law, given that all 50 states (by memory) and the federal government have RFRA statutes. Which laws can be broken remains a question, as RFRA laws do not, by design, specify which statutes aren't necessary or narrowly-targeted enough to override a religious exemption. Murder is a case where the state would have a clear compelling interest and laws against homicide are narrowly targeted. Abortion — which hasn't historically entailed homicide in federal or state law — would be a more interesting test case (though we'd more likely see such a case brought by an assortment of interested religious groups than by one specific clinic).

But this is why RFRA laws are bad, any road: they end up carving out a pathway for state-approved religious exercise while, in practice, denying the same pathway to less sympathetic religious exercises for no better reason than a district judge or Samuel Alito doesn't want to.

-Sam

They would have to carve out a specific exemption for Satanists to allow abortion as a method of child sacrifice (which is what they are pretending to believe and do). I seriously doubt any court would grant such an exemption, don't you?

[rogue06]

They would have to carve out a specific exemption for Satanists to allow abortion as a method of child sacrifice (which is what they are pretending to believe and do). I seriously doubt any court would grant such an exemption, don't you?

In a worse case scenario where they win, the bright side is that most women thinking about getting an abortion will think twice about going to a place that declares they are sacrificing to Satan whenever they do an abortion.

[Sam]

They would have to carve out a specific exemption for Satanists to allow abortion as a method of child sacrifice (which is what they are pretending to believe and do). I seriously doubt any court would grant such an exemption, don't you?

Child sacrifice isn't part of the clinic's stated beliefs or process and abortion is therefore not being used "as a method of child sacrifice". So that wouldn't be a viable path of attacking the claim under RFRA.

-Sam

[Sam]

In a worse case scenario where they win, the bright side is that most women thinking about getting an abortion will think twice about going to a place that declares they are sacrificing to Satan whenever they do an abortion.

This remains a misunderstanding of modern American Satanism, which views Satan as a metaphorical figure for self-determination and autonomy. It also tends to impede an objective examination of Lucifer as a literary figure; which is a real shame, as there remains no better archetype for humanity's natural relationship to God.

-Sam

[Sparko]

Child sacrifice isn't part of the clinic's stated beliefs or process and abortion is therefore not being used "as a method of child sacrifice". So that wouldn't be a viable path of attacking the claim under RFRA.

-Sam

"The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite."

Yeah because a flyer changes everything. And a ritual celebrating destruction of a human being is so much different than "child sacrifice"

I see no way this would get a judge to circumvent abortion laws in any state that outlaws it. The ritual is not part of any core Satanic doctrine. It was simply invented to try to claim abortion is a religious belief apparently. But they also say "The purpose of the ritual is not to persuade someone to have an abortion if they are undecided"

Taking them at their word, abortion itself is not part of their religious beliefs, the ceremony is simply "to assist in affirming their decision and to ward off the effects of unjust persecution, which can cause one to stray from the paths of scientific reasoning and free will that Satanists strive to embody" So they have no basis for asking for an abortion exemption, since they admit that the choice to abort is up to the individual and therefore not part of the religion. They could do the ritual in any state where abortion is already legal and not do it in any state where it is not legal and not contravene their stated "beliefs"

[Sam]

"The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a destruction ritual that serves as a protective rite."

Yeah because a flyer changes everything. And a ritual celebrating destruction of a human being is so much different than "child sacrifice"

I see no way this would get a judge to circumvent abortion laws in any state that outlaws it. The ritual is not part of any core Satanic doctrine. It was simply invented to try to claim abortion is a religious belief apparently. But they also say "The purpose of the ritual is not to persuade someone to have an abortion if they are undecided"

Taking them at their word, abortion itself is not part of their religious beliefs, the ceremony is simply "to assist in affirming their decision and to ward off the effects of unjust persecution, which can cause one to stray from the paths of scientific reasoning and free will that Satanists strive to embody" So they have no basis for asking for an abortion exemption, since they admit that the choice to abort is up to the individual and therefore not part of the ritual. They could do the ritual in any state where abortion is already legal and not do it in any state where it is not legal and not contravene their stated "beliefs"

Problem is that you're approaching this on a set of presumptions and prejudices that the government, in principle, cannot adopt when evaluating a RFRA claim. So if a person claiming to sincerely practice a Satanic rite argues that they're "expelling unwanted fetal tissue" and they do not view such tissue as "a child" then they have to be either taken at their word or the government has to demonstrate that they're not sincere ... which is hard.

Self-determination is a core principle of Satanism and the decision to end an unwanted pregnancy would easily fit into that belief system. There's no RFRA provision for "you can do that sort of thing in a state where it's legal" because the whole premise is to create exemptions in state and federal laws where the practice is illegal.

This is a real RFRA issue, however it might end up, and it's an issue precisely because the people who want religious exemptions for generally-applicable laws created a purposely-vague mechanism that puts a huge onus on the government to narrowly tailor laws to what often enough ends up being absurd degrees to avoid RFRA suits. You don't have to like it, you don't have to think this RFRA claim-in-waiting will succeed but RFRA is clearly the target these people are trying to hit and they may well succeed to some degree, contra Mountain Man's initial incredulity. Starlight is correct when he explains what legal strategy this group is pursuing (excluding the part about The Satanic Temple "pretending" and "trolling").

-Sam

[Sparko]

Problem is that you're approaching this on a set of presumptions and prejudices that the government, in principle, cannot adopt when evaluating a RFRA claim. So if a person claiming to sincerely practice a Satanic rite argues that they're "expelling unwanted fetal tissue" and they do not view such tissue as "a child" then they have to be either taken at their word or the government has to demonstrate that they're not sincere ... which is hard.

They would have to show that doing so is something that is a core belief of Satanism, which the flyer just said it was not. They don't care if someone aborts their fetus or not. The Ritual is just there to get rid of the bad feelings after they have done so (and including the procedure as part of it). If someone doesn't have an abortion then they don't care and there is no need for the ritual. So they can't argue that having an abortion is something that is part of their religion.
And there is plenty of precedent where something just isn't allowed even if it is part of their closely held religious beliefs, such as polygamy in the Mormon Church.

Self-determination is a core principle of Satanism and the decision to end an unwanted pregnancy would easily fit into that belief system. There's no RFRA provision for "you can do that sort of thing in a state where it's legal" because the whole premise is to create exemptions in state and federal laws where the practice is illegal.

I don't think so. Self-determinism is a core principle of many religions. Does that mean that a person can ignore a law because they want to? That would be a total disaster.

This is a real RFRA issue, however it might end up, and it's an issue precisely because the people who want religious exemptions for generally-applicable laws created a purposely-vague mechanism that puts a huge onus on the government to narrowly tailor laws to what often enough ends up being absurd degrees to avoid RFRA suits. You don't have to like it, you don't have to think this RFRA claim-in-waiting will succeed but RFRA is clearly the target these people are trying to hit and they may well succeed to some degree, contra Mountain Man's initial incredulity. Starlight is correct when he explains what legal strategy this group is pursuing (excluding the part about The Satanic Temple "pretending" and "trolling").

-Sam

Sam, at this point in time I have zero faith in our government doing the right or even the logical thing, so while you might be correct in that they could allow such a thing as letting Satanist subvert abortion laws, I have hope they have not fallen so low as of yet.

[Sam]

They would have to show that doing so is something that is a core belief of Satanism, which the flyer just said it was not. They don't care if someone aborts their fetus or not. The Ritual is just there to get rid of the bad feelings after they have done so (and including the procedure as part of it). If someone doesn't have an abortion then they don't care and there is no need for the ritual. So they can't argue that having an abortion is something that is part of their religion.
And there is plenty of precedent where something just isn't allowed even if it is part of their closely held religious beliefs, such as polygamy in the Mormon Church.


I don't think so. Self-determinism is a core principle of many religions. Does that mean that a person can ignore a law because they want to? That would be a total disaster.



Sam, at this point in time I have zero faith in our government doing the right or even the logical thing, so while you might be correct in that they could allow such a thing as letting Satanist subvert abortion laws, I have hope they have not fallen so low as of yet.

No, a "sincere belief" doesn't have to be a core belief under RFRA laws. Paying for contraceptive access via a tax doesn't infringe on any part of the Christian Creed. "Core" isn't part of RFRA. What a person would need to do to bring a RFRA suit on this matter is show that self-determination and personal autonomy is a sincere religious/philosophical belief and the government's prohibition against abortion up to a certain point in time violates the expression of that belief. Then it's on the government to prove the law is necessary and narrowly tailored.

Polygamy is a good example of what I've said about RFRA laws being bad: can the government show a compelling interest in denying polygamy? Can it show that the law is narrowly tailored? It can't but the ban persists, even though polygamy is arguably more core to traditional LDS practice than avoiding a tax is to Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters.

Yes, the principled application of RFRA laws would be a total disaster. That's what Ginsberg was saying when she wrote about a "parade of horribles" in her Hobby Lobby dissent. It's bad law and Smith, as much as I dislike agreeing with Scalia, was good law.

I don't think religious groups will successfully create exemptions to abortion laws because, like you, I don't believe the relevant court systems (district and appellate courts with jurisdiction over states likely to enforce these strict bans) or the Supreme Court will objectively rule on the principle of the law. No way, in my mind, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, or Barrett extend the same latitude to abortion advocates that they'd extend to more ideologically sympathetic groups.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Well, that was the majority opinion of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), where Scalia wrote that religious beliefs did not exempt people from "generally-applicable" laws. In response to Smith, numerous states passed RFRA laws that explicitly carved out a path to such exemptions, putting the onus of proof on government, not individuals, that a law was sufficiently necessary and narrowly targeted such that its application to individuals didn't infringe on their religious beliefs.

In the case of Smith, future RFRA laws protected the use of peyote during religious ceremony, even though possession and distribution of peyote is illegal. You absolutely can use religion to "break" the law, given that all 50 states (by memory) and the federal government have RFRA statutes. Which laws can be broken remains a question, as RFRA laws do not, by design, specify which statutes aren't necessary or narrowly-targeted enough to override a religious exemption. Murder is a case where the state would have a clear compelling interest and laws against homicide are narrowly targeted. Abortion — which hasn't historically entailed homicide in federal or state law — would be a more interesting test case (though we'd more likely see such a case brought by an assortment of interested religious groups than by one specific clinic).

But this is why RFRA laws are bad, any road: they end up carving out a pathway for state-approved religious exercise while, in practice, denying the same pathway to less sympathetic religious exercises for no better reason than a district judge or Samuel Alito doesn't want to.

-Sam

Again, the keyword that you ignored when jumping into this debate is "arbitrarily", as in "No, a person in the United States can not arbitrarily claim religious immunity for an illegal act." You then cited a case where the request for legal exemption was anything but arbitrary; rather, it was based on long established Christian values.

At this point, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue.