Fogbow

Jewish women sue to overturn Kentucky's abortion ban, saying it violates their religious rights

Congregation L'Dor Va-Dor v. State of Florida (Florida state court)

In June, the Jewish congregation L'Dor Va-Dor filed [a class action] suit in Florida, alleging that the state’s abortion ban violated that same state’s statute guaranteeing religious freedom. Specifically, the lawsuit cited the Jewish law which permits or even requires abortion in many circumstances, including to preserve ‘the health, mental or physical well-being” of those who become pregnant. A similar suit, brought by the ACLU on behalf of a group calling itself Hoosier Jews for Choice, is pending in Indiana. [ Hoosier Jews for Choice v. State of Indiana https://www.wbiw.com/2022/09/08/a-class ... h-s-e-a-1/]

Now a third lawsuit, brought by three Jewish women in Kentucky state court] asserts that Kentucky laws providing that “life begins” at the moment of fertilization and banning abortions after six weeks, are equally violative of their religious traditions. This suit differs from the others, however, in that it poses not only religious but practical problems—faced by not just those who may wish to terminate a pregnancy, but by those who actually want to become pregnant. Sobel, Kalb, and Baron v. Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, Jefferson County Circuit Court

As reported by Yonat Shimron, for The Washington Post:

What’s distinct about the latest suit is that all three of the Jewish women require in vitro fertilization to become pregnant but are afraid of beginning the procedure without greater clarity about what the law will permit them to do with excess frozen embryos. The suit claims the women must spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely, and they are unsure whether they will face felony charges if they dispose of them.

As Shimron reports, the suit also states that “because pregnancies resulting from infertility treatments have a higher rate of stillbirth, the women foresee the possibility of not wanting to carry their IVF pregnancies to term if the fetus is not viable.”

MULTIPLE OVERLAPPING ABORTION BANS HAVE CAUSED CONFUSION AND CHAOS, FORCING ARIZONA PROVIDERS TO CEASE ABORTION SERVICES
OCTOBER 4, 2022
TUCSON, Ariz. — Today, an Arizona physician and the Arizona Medical Association filed a lawsuit in state court, asking the court to allow abortion care to resume through 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit seeks to clarify doctors’ obligations under Arizona’s multiple overlapping abortion laws. The challenge comes a week after another court allowed a 150-year-old criminal abortion ban to take effect. The century-old law is one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or threats to a pregnant person’s health. Within a day of this ban being reinstated, a separate law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy — which was passed in March — took effect.

In the lawsuit filed today, abortion providers argue that there is no clarity over which state laws govern the provision of abortion care in Arizona, including how the total abortion ban tracing back to 1864 interacts with other abortion laws on the books, such as the most recent state law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The state has dozens of conflicting abortion laws in effect, causing uncertainty and confusion over how the laws work in conjunction and in practice. The lawsuit asks the court to clarify Arizona’s numerous abortion laws and argues that physicians should be allowed to provide abortion care in the state through 15 weeks of pregnancy in accordance with state law.

Last week, an Indiana appeals court ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs who challenged the state’s restrictive abortion law on the ground that it interfered with their right to religious freedom.

Moreover, the Indiana ruling could spread to other states and the federal government. After all, the basis for the court’s decision was Indiana’s state RFRA, which in every relevant respect is identical to the federal RFRA. Indeed, as I shall explain, the Indiana court’s logic, if accepted elsewhere, could provide a basis in federal constitutional law to challenge abortion laws in every state that substantially restricts abortion.

Acyn @Acyn wrote: Johnson: The state of Idaho Is literally arguing for the right to deny patients emergency abortion care, even if it means that they could die. So let me say that again, The Supreme Court will soon decide if our opponents really have the right to let us die