Satanic Temple: Missouri Anti-Choice Restrictions an ‘Affront’ to Religious Freedom

The Satanic Temple last week filed a lawsuit against Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D), alleging that the state’s abortion restrictions violate temple members’ freedom of religion.

This was treated by various people, including those sympathetic to their position, as somewhat trollish in nature.  It was seen as a way to put conservatives to the test respecting RFRAs.  This sort of thing was done by the organization in the past -- e.g., in respect to public displays.  Gather that the group is serious enough, not akin to let's say the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something. Putting aside the usual question of line-drawing even there, we are talking about a serious "religious" group that warrants protection akin to some ethical cultural humanistic one. Of which, it probably can be counted itself.

They also aren't "satanists" to the degree they support evil or something.  That is the sort of "satanist" that probably was involved in the prison rights lawsuit (Cutter v. Wilkinson).  Their FAQ notes:

Satan is symbolic of the Eternal Rebel in opposition to arbitrary authority, forever defending personal sovereignty even in the face of insurmountable odds. Satan is an icon for the unbowed will of the unsilenced inquirer… the heretic who questions sacred laws and rejects all tyrannical impositions. Ours is the literary Satan best exemplified by Milton and the Romantic Satanists, from Blake to Shelley, to Anatole France.

I think the term in common understanding generally has a negative connotation, but perhaps that conflict with normalcy only makes the name more useful.  The origins of the term involved “the adversary" of God, a metaphorical concept that eventually was personalized. This is seen by comparing two accounts of events in King David's life, one involving God alone, one (written later) involving "Satan."  Some try to show how the two really amount to the same thing.  I'm not going to bet the farm on such things, but it is likely it is a reflection of changing views, including philosophical ideas of good and evil prevalent by the time of its writing. That is, past the time of various Greek philosophers.

Anyway, the term early on had a sort of "devil's advocate" connotation (e.g., Job's loyalty to God tested), so you can see some of that.  It still to me is misleading to use a term generally understood to be negative.  Some might even think God, which also can be a metaphorical construct as used by this organization (they don't really believe in the actual Satan in Hell etc.), would be against "arbitrary authority" etc. The test of conscience here very well can be raised by a Christian or other believer of God.  They too repeatedly have been troublemakers that challenge authority.

The woman here -- a recent update on the organization's Facebook page notes they trying to make this a class action -- argues that she has religious beliefs holding her body is her own, health choices should be made based on sound science, abortion is morally acceptable and the state abortion laws violate the views in various respects.  For instance, requirements to provide information asserting "life of each human being begins at conception" and that "abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." This she finds bad science.  She need not prove this either; a "belief" is enough -- see the Hobby Lobby case on IUDs. She also argues that the seventy-two hour waiting period interferes with her conscientious choice.  Again, "belief" is a lower test here. 

RFRAs are not absolute. The state will have to show why there is a compelling reason to enforce this law against her even regarding her religious beliefs. They could easily offer the same literature themselves, but requiring her to take it is another thing.  It is also different to require the providers to have the material available, at least based on this claim.  The problem here is the language has a certain plastic character.  Objectively, the language appears false, particularly the part about a "separate" being that is connected to a woman's body.  Can see a court accepting that the text can be spun to be an actual reflection of reality.  A respectful understanding of views here would accept the language is subjective enough that there can be reasonable dispute, one with religious overtones. 

The waiting period is argued to be necessary to allow truly informed and free choice.  The waiting period if often only twenty-four hours and some states allow it to be done over the phone. So, the breadth is arguably a problem here. It is probably harder to claim no waiting period is compelling under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Stevens/Blackmun has the better argument as to the merits) except perhaps if reliance on religious belief here is stronger than the "undue burden" test regarding abortion.  Various abortion regulations can fall under the conscientious choice to control one's body test.  Again, it is a matter of abortion rights v. religious liberty though these days the latter appear more respected at times.

The Supreme Court has noted the fact that abortion is a deep matter of conscience for which there is much division among religious groups. The right to liberty involved is such an important individual choice in part just for that very reason.  But, they still allowed waiting periods and biased consent provisions.  So, though the lawsuit usefully shows how certain abortion restrictions can burden religious beliefs, the success on the merits of such a challenge is much more questionable.