If Christian business owners cannot be compelled to violate their faith, why should the same protection not apply to Satanists? That's the argument the Satanic Temple is making to claim that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, women who share their beliefs should not be forced to follow some of the more restrictive state-level abortion laws to crop up in recent years.

 

Specifically, the Satanic Temple wants women to be exempt from having to view legally mandated "informational" materials — which it calls "biased" and "medically invalid" — prior to having an abortion. Dozens of states require women to attend counseling before receiving an abortion, while 10 mandate that they receive written materials before undergoing the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

 

"While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact," a spokesperson for the group said in a press release.

 

The Satanic Temple added that all women who share their belief that the "body is inviolable subject to one's own will alone" — and not merely temple members — should be free to claim the exemption.

 

Satanic Temple seeks Hobby Lobby-style exemption from anti-abortion laws - The Week

Does this group have a case?

Without question and it has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby.

 

Nothing about abortion should be "mandated" for a woman.

Specifically, the Satanic Temple wants women to be exempt from having to view legally mandated "informational" materials — which it calls "biased" and "medically invalid" — prior to having an abortion. Dozens of states require women to attend counseling before receiving an abortion, while 10 mandate that they receive written materials before undergoing the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

 

 

What are the materials that are mandated to be viewed by the women who choose legal abortion in those states?

 

If it is moral, Christian-based information, then I don't think by law they should be subject to it. (even though I am personally against abortion)

 

If it is educational, i.e. medical knowledge information about the fetus/procedure, then I may feel differently.

http://www.womansrighttoknow.org/download/Handbook_English.pdf

 

Sample of information required to be given to women who are seeking an abortion in Kansas. I'm sure it varies from state to state.

I will also say I am glad to see this group file suit.

 

I realize it is almost impossible but we have to get bias out of our legal decisions, especially the ones we have a lot of time to consider.

Yes, they have a case.

Specifically, the Satanic Temple wants women to be exempt from having to view legally mandated "informational" materials — which it calls "biased" and "medically invalid" — prior to having an abortion. Dozens of states require women to attend counseling before receiving an abortion, while 10 mandate that they receive written materials before undergoing the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

 

 

What are the materials that are mandated to be viewed by the women who choose legal abortion in those states?

 

If it is moral, Christian-based information, then I don't think by law they should be subject to it. (even though I am personally against abortion)

 

If it is educational, i.e. medical knowledge information about the fetus/procedure, then I may feel differently.

 

I agree with this except for the last sentence, I do feel differently if it is medical knowledge, no "May" about it.

I will also say I am glad to see this group file suit.

 

I realize it is almost impossible but we have to get bias out of our legal decisions, especially the ones we have a lot of time to consider.

Re bias: Are you saying that the Hobby Lobby decision was influenced by the fact that Thomas-Scalia-Kennedy-Roberts-Alito are all Roman Catholic males?

Re bias: Are you saying that the Hobby Lobby decision was influenced by the fact that Thomas-Scalia-Kennedy-Roberts-Alito are all Roman Catholic males?

 

I am not claiming I am scholar on these issues, my take is pretty simple, religion and the law should always be completely separate. I like what was quoted from the article:

"While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact," a spokesperson for the group said in a press release.

I am not claiming I am scholar on these issues, my take is pretty simple, religion and the law should always be completely separate. I like what was quoted from the article:

"While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact," a spokesperson for the group said in a press release.

 

Where did they in anyway Trump Scientific Fact in their Hobby Lobby ruling? That makes for a great sound bite but it doesn't seem to be very fact based itself.

Every argument the anti-life crowd uses to justify abortion defies science.

I am not claiming I am scholar on these issues, my take is pretty simple, religion and the law should always be completely separate. I like what was quoted from the article:

"While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact," a spokesperson for the group said in a press release.

"Spokesperson" for the group should review the ruling. Not sure what the ruling trumped scientifically.

I said I liked the comment.

 

Ask yourself this question everyone, why is a woman mandated to do anything if she chooses to have an abortion? And your focus has to be on mandated.

I said I liked the comment.

 

Ask yourself this question everyone, why is a woman mandated to do anything if she chooses to have an abortion? And your focus has to be on mandated.

 

 

My guess would be because of the lasting health implications it can have down the road.

 

Isn't it pretty much mandated for any "surgical procedure" that a doctor or someone provides the patient with all pertinent information about the side-effects, lasting impact, etc. that go along with the procedure?