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.
Ruh-roh, Raggy… you mean Religion isn’t just the province of the Evangelicals?
[The Judge] cracked that lawmakers are ill-equipped to decide a question still confounding theologians.
And that, my friends, is the nub of the pro-abortion factions. The whole discussion of when life begins is very clear in the Bible - when the first breath is taken. Not before.
This is great news! Be careful what you wish for…
Ayup. No exemptions to the ‘stone the adultress’ are given for if she’s pregnant. But then, the whole adultery thing is about making sure the man knows that whatever kids come out of his wife are entitled to inherit his property. Probably also why there’s a ritual in the bible for determining if the wife’s been faithful that (supposedly) has God auto-abort any kid she’s carrying if she’s cheated.
My story on something like this:
Back in the 80s, my first ex and I were already separated, but not yet divorced. I determined to be a surrogate mom for my sister and her second husband (she’d had her tubes tied after her first divorce and the cost to reverse was prohibitive with only a 50% chance of success).
The lawyer that handled the surrogacy was also my divorce lawyer. Turns out, because I was still married, even though the paperwork was in progress for the divorce, had I become pregnant before the divorce was final, my ex would’ve had claim on the child, even though his DNA was nowhere near the child.
So once the lawyer got the final decree on the divorce, he put the surrogacy documents through.
The child of that relationship is now 35 years old. I married my second husband halfway through the pregnancy.
That is absolutely nuts.
Welcome to the 1980s. This was 1987- 88 (I miscarried the first attempt).
And the rest of the story is that my sister’s second marriage also broke up a few years after the child was born. They’d gone through a full-adoption, but my sister had no biological claim on the child, so she had to pay child support and remand custody to her ex. Let me be clear - she was the bad actor that led to the divorce, not her husband.
Story is particularly sensitive today, as this is the 16th anniversary of her passing from cancer.
Erf. 
I’m so sorry.
I held the sincere belief that human sacrifices should be made to Huitzilopochtli, I even have a few MAGAts in mind that I would like to offer.
About damn time.
Interested to see how the SCOTUS conservatives twist themselves in a knot arguing that religious freedom applies to me, but not to thee on abortion.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
Personally, I hold a sincere belief that life begins at 4.1-4.2 bya, and everything since then is just an expanding chemical reaction cascade, so it should be fine to just interrupt parts of that chemical cascade. Those bundles of chemicals will get worked into the larger chain by other parts of the whole.
Hey lib losers. Bet you wish you could have gotten in on the ground floor of Truth Social like I did. This stock is a rocket ship!
disclaimer: I totally stole this from somebody on the internet.
So sorry for the poor people who got onboard. Well, not really.
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.”
Yay?? Of course this is good but at what cost to others that also need this exemption to IN’s ridiculous ban. Will they need to show their star of David to prove they’re entitled to an abortion based on this ruling if the need arises?
Good but screwy decision since its only about religious conviction and how one group was able to arrive at an exemption to the ban, but I guess we Jews shouldn’t complain. But woe-is-me for the rest of Indiana if the ban continues to exist in this state for everyone else.
“Legislators, an overwhelming majority of whom have not experienced childbirth, nevertheless dictate that virtually all pregnancies in this State must proceed to birth notwithstanding the onerous burden upon women and girls,” he wrote. “They have done so not based upon science or viability but upon a blanket assertion that they are the protectors of ‘life’ from the moment of conception.”
Now that makes total sense.
Very interesting!
Scratches his head. Only a few?
Like a rocket ship built by Elon!
This is the path to undo all this evangelical nonsense…they can believe what they want, but the Constitution forbids them from dictating my actions based on their beliefs. Forcing me to worship the way they do is just wrong, but they are too blinded by their beliefs to understand that. It’s way past time for the rest of us to correct their attempt to control the rest of us.
What needs to happen is to make it clear that anyone who has a belief outside of what these people have cannot be forced to live by that belief. It has to include people who don’t believe in religion as well…atheists should not be denied the ability to get out from under this stuff. Some atheists really should sue and demand the same right, as science makes it clear that a fetus cannot survive and atheist women should not have to die because of a religious belief foisted upon them.
