Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(60,496 posts)
Mon May 13, 2024, 03:45 PM May 13

Louisville judge hears arguments in Jewish women's challenge of Kentucky's abortion ban

LOUISVILLE — Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Brian Edwards heard oral arguments Monday in the case of three Jewish women who argue their religious freedom is violated by Kentucky’s abortion ban.

Much of the arguments focused on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and the extent to which it overlaps with the state’s abortion ban. Several lawmakers filed bills to protect the process in Kentucky this session, but none became law. Some feel IVF is in limbo since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in mid February that frozen embryos are children.

Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Brian Edwards heard oral arguments Monday in the case of three Jewish women who argue their religious freedom is violated by Kentucky’s abortion ban.





https://kentuckylantern.com/2024/05/13/louisville-judge-hears-arguments-in-jewish-womens-challenge-of-kentuckys-abortion-ban/

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Louisville judge hears arguments in Jewish women's challenge of Kentucky's abortion ban (Original Post) RandySF May 13 OP
Jewish Leaders: Banning Abortion is 'Absolutely' a Violation of Religious Freedom LetMyPeopleVote May 13 #1
Indiana Court Gives Win To Group Arguing Religious Freedom Grants Them Right To Abortion LetMyPeopleVote May 13 #2
Those "deeply held religious values" come back to bite 'em in the ass! Grins May 13 #3
It seems Elessar Zappa May 13 #4

LetMyPeopleVote

(146,450 posts)
1. Jewish Leaders: Banning Abortion is 'Absolutely' a Violation of Religious Freedom
Mon May 13, 2024, 03:55 PM
May 13

Under Jewish religious law, it is clear that life begins at birth and there is no prohibition in the Torah on abortion. According to my Rabbi, the life of a fetus is only potential life and the life of the mother is more important than the life of a fetus. Alito's proposed opinion elevates Christian beliefs over Judaism.



https://jezebel.com/jewish-leaders-banning-abortion-is-absolutely-a-violat-1848885645

Conservatives—namely, white evangelical Christians—have long weaponized religious values as a shoddy defense for their decades-long conquest to criminalize abortion in the United States. But after a leaked draft of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Roe v. Wade sent shockwaves through the public consciousness on Monday night, a different kind of group of religious text-swinging heroes has emerged.

Coalitions of Rabbis across different sects of Judaism and a contingent of Jewish abortion activists are defending Jewish pregnant people’s right to abortion access, raising what they claim is a valid legal challenge: A national abortion ban would violate their right to religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. And as the right to bodily autonomy for women and pregnant people is threatened—largely impacting low-income Black and brown people—by conservative justices’ arguments that we should simply rewind to the good old years when women didn’t have any rights because, you know, some 17th century witch-hunter said so, Jewish communities are putting their foot down to say, “Not in my religion.”......

For evidence, Rabbi Ruttenberg points to the Book of Exodus in the Torah, which discusses a case where two men accidentally knock over a pregnant person and cause them to miscarry:

“When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other harm ensues, the one responsible shall be fined when the woman’s husband demands compensation; the payment will be determined by judges. But if other harm ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

The Hebrew Bible, she says, does not regard the fetus as a person, for the Torah doesn’t specify how long the woman has been pregnant when the miscarriage happens. Another annotated text states, “If she is found pregnant, until the fortieth day it is mere fluid,” meaning the fetus does not have agency for at least forty days of pregnancy. For that reason, some interpretations of Jewish law say that personhood begins with the first breath. “It’s not murder, basically, and the Talmud lays that out really explicitly,” she says.

I like the idea of a lawsuit filed on the basis of the First Amendment. Alito's draft opinion favors conservative christian theology over the faith all all or most Jews.

LetMyPeopleVote

(146,450 posts)
2. Indiana Court Gives Win To Group Arguing Religious Freedom Grants Them Right To Abortion
Mon May 13, 2024, 04:00 PM
May 13

Under Jewish religious law, abortions are both permissible and required under some circumstances. The laws outlawing abortions on based on the concept that one branch of Christianity can impose its belief structure on other religions. An Indiana court of appeals has just ruled in favor of a group of Jewish plaintiffs on this issue.



https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/indiana-court-gives-win-to-group-arguing-religious-freedom-grants-them-right-to-abortion

An Indiana appeals court Thursday upheld an injunction for plaintiffs arguing that their religious beliefs entitle them to an exemption from the state’s near-total abortion ban.

A few individuals and Hoosier Jews for Choice said that they believe that life does not begin at conception and that the life of the pregnant woman outweighs the “potential for life embodied in a fetus.”

The argument turns one of the anti-abortion movement’s most reliable talking points on its head and takes the mantle of “religious conviction” from conservative Christians, who have wielded it so successfully, both in courts of law and public opinion.

“If a corporation can engage in a religious exercise by refusing to provide abortifacients — contraceptives that essentially abort a pregnancy after fertilization — it stands to reason that a pregnant person can engage in a religious exercise by pursuing an abortion,” wrote Judge Leanna Weissmann for the Court of Appeals of Indiana. “In both situations, the claimant is required to take or abstain from action that the claimant’s sincere religious beliefs direct. And in both situations, the claimant’s objection to the challenged law or regulation is rooted in the claimant’s sincere religious beliefs.”

Weissmann also pointed out that the exemption plaintiffs seek aligns with the (scant) exemptions included in the abortion ban.

“The broader religious exemption that Plaintiffs effectively seek has the same foundation as the narrower exceptions already existing in the Abortion Law: all are based on the interests of the mother outweighing the interests of the zygote, embryo, or fetus,” she wrote. “The religious exemption that Plaintiffs seek, based on their sincere religious beliefs, merely expands the circumstances in which the pregnant woman’s health dictates an abortion.”

Grins

(7,305 posts)
3. Those "deeply held religious values" come back to bite 'em in the ass!
Mon May 13, 2024, 04:55 PM
May 13

Love this case. Been waiting for it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Louisville judge hears ar...