Skip to comments.Court of Appeals unanimously rejects Satanic Temple memberís challenge to Missouriís informed...
Posted on 08/29/2018 1:59:04 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Court of Appeals unanimously rejects Satanic Temple members challenge to Missouris informed consent law
A win, at least for now. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a member of the Satanic Temple could not challenge Missouris 72-hour waiting period/informed consent law because she was not pregnant at the time of her lawsuit and therefore lacked standing. The three-judge panel unanimously upheld a federal appeal courts dismissal.
The judges wrote that although [p]regnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness, the doctrine does not apply here because she did not first establish standing.
However, as NRL News Today reported in January, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mary Doe, the same plaintiff in the Eighth Circuit case [who] was pregnant when she sued, according to Courthouse News Service.
Missouris law has a 72 hour waiting period between the time a woman first meets an abortionist and (if she goes forward) has an abortion. It also requires that a booklet be made available and that the woman be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound and to hear the fetal heartbeat.
The sentence in the booklet which Doe argues promotes a religious doctrine she does not believe in says, (t)he life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.
We are pleased with the courts ruling, Mary Compton, communications director for Attorney General Joshua Hawley, said in a statement. The attorney generals office will continue to vigorously defend Missouris sensible waiting period law.
After her abortion, citing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Doe and the Satanic Temple filed suit against the State of Missouri at both the federal and state levels in an effort to obtain an exemption. Does complaint asserts The decision [to abort] is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Does belief in the Tenets [of the Satanic Temple], adding, Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the exercise of religion protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
In a fine story, Heather Clark provides abundant background both to the case and to the Satanic Temple.
Clark noted of the complaint
that Doe doesnt believe as a matter of religious faith that life begins at conception, but that she rather feels that she is simply aborting tissue that is part of her body, and not a separate, unique, living human being. However, it also stated that Doe felt guilt and shame for declining to hear the heartbeat of her unborn child during the ultrasound that is required 72 hours before the abortion.
“Doe doesnt believe ‘as a matter of religious faith’ that life begins at conception
“Tissue” or not, what is conceived is inarguably alive and the beginning of a “life”. That’s science, not religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.