Reprinted from Leader-News
Earlier this month, three Jewish women in Louisville filed a lawsuit against the commonwealth of Kentucky, highlighting the vague language of the state’s abortion ban, triggered when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer.
The women are all undergoing in-vitro fertilization. Couples often store several fertilized eggs for the medical procedure, but under Kentucky’s abortion law, it’s unclear if the common practice of disposing of surplus fertilized eggs could be considered a capital offense.
One of the women said she would like another child, but experienced difficulties with her first pregnancy. Due to the law’s vague language, she is afraid of miscarrying and possibly dying while her doctor confers with lawyers to make sure they aren’t breaking the law by providing her with life-saving care.
Another of the women is an Ashkenazi Jew who fears passing along Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal genetic disorder she is at higher risk of transmitting. Through testing around 15 weeks, the disease can be detected. Many choose to terminate a pregnancy once that diagnosis is found.
While their complaints all surround the vague language of the Kentucky ban regarding IVF and its complications, their chief complaint is a claim to religious liberty.
The Jewish faith has settled the question of abortion rights a millennium ago, their lawsuit claims. Most Jewish denominations teach that a fetus becomes a human life at birth, therefore a fetus deserves a level of respect, but does not have the same rights as a person. They hold the belief that the life and health of the birth giver takes precedence.
The women argue Kentucky’s abortion ban violates Jewish practices and forces pregnant Jewish women to conform to another set of religious beliefs.
“I am committed to defending Kentucky’s pro-life laws. The General Assembly has made it clear that Kentucky will protect unborn life and these laws are an important part of the commonwealth,” Attorney General Daniel Cameron said in response to the lawsuit.
Life is rarely so black and white, and when it comes to individual healthcare, it’s a world full of gray areas.
Jewish women are not the only women in Kentucky struggling with these same concerns. The Lexington Herald-Leader reported on a “swell in demand” for surgical sterilizations in Kentucky after the ban went into effect, as hundreds of women decided they are not willing to risk complications of pregnancy under the government’s broad but vague restrictions.
A constitutional amendment on the November ballot asks voters to decide if abortion has no protection in Kentucky. If passed, only the legislature gets to decide who can have access to this often life-saving medical procedure.
The amendment is only one sentence: “To protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”
People who believe life begins at fertilization and abortion should be completely outlawed as part of their sincerely held religious beliefs likely won’t be swayed by people who hold different beliefs. It’s hard to argue that the near-total ban on abortion access is anything other than the state adopting those religious beliefs.
The case brought by the Jewish women will determine if religious freedom extends beyond Christian belief. The women cite the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, often cited by Cameron. It remains to be seen if the government can “prove by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing” on the sincerely held religious beliefs of these Jewish women, inserting itself into their personal, medical and spiritual lives.