Proposals for a spiritual justification of abortion are being advanced by certain progressives

The Supreme Court has supported the arguments of those raising faith-based objections by showing deference to them.

At a rally in Clayton, USA, a sign held by a protestor advocating abortion access was based on Jewish law. The demonstrator was extremely in support of choice. This image was provided by AP.

The Book of Exodus has a section devoted to liability and, while it is a bit antiquated in that it mentions damages for a bull goring someone's slave, there is one parable that is still applicable to current abortion discussions. This parable explains how Judaism views the unborn; if a pregnant woman is struck and miscarries, the wrongdoer is fined, but if the woman dies, the penalty is death, demonstrating that a fetus and a person are not viewed as equal. In addition to this story, other Jewish texts also imply that life does not start at conception.

A number of states have implemented bans on abortion in order to safeguard fetal life, with some of these laws explicitly stating this rationale. Nonetheless, this rests on a religiously based view of when life actually begins, which disregards the beliefs of those whose faith holds that life only begins at a later point. In Jewish law, abortion is authorised, and even mandatory, in situations where the mother's health is in jeopardy, either physically or psychologically. Although Jews don't agree on what level of risk necessitates the procedure, the general consensus is that the mother's wellbeing takes precedence.

In Indiana and Kentucky, numerous female members of the Jewish faith are contesting their states' abortion bans due to religious reasons, claiming that the laws make it difficult to get an abortion when their faith might require it. The lawsuit in Indiana is joined by a Muslim and a non-theistic believer in the sanctity of bodily autonomy. On December 6th, the Indiana Court of Appeals, which is positioned beneath the state's Supreme Court, will be examining the case. Comparable disputes have been filed by spiritual leaders in Florida and Missouri. 

Many may be surprised to know that there is a religious case for abortion. Before the Roe v Wade ruling in 1973, liberal Protestants and Jews had advocated for reproductive choice in certain cases as a matter of conscience. The Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion, established in 1967, was formed to provide a referral and counselling network and by 1973 had aided nearly 500,000 women. The Indiana chapter of the Service stated that the goal was to "assist women in what some have described as 'their deepest crisis'".

In Indiana and Kentucky, the plaintiffs are invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which gives religious individuals the ability to seek an exemption from a law if it "substantially burdens" the exercise of their faith. 24 states, including Indiana and Kentucky, plus the federal government, have a RFRA. In order to dispute a RFRA case, the government has to prove that its use of the law is the most limited way to protect an "essential" state interest (for example, protecting fetal life). 

The plaintiffs have a strong argument due to the debate concerning the commencement of life and if it is present from conception. Additionally, the Supreme Court has recently made it simpler for religious objectors to be successful by claiming that the government is undermining its reason for not granting religious exceptions when secular ones are allowed. All abortion prohibitions are permissible if the mother's life is in danger; Indiana even allows those who were victims of rape or incest to do so. Neither Indiana nor Kentucky prevents IVF clinics from discarding unused fertilised embryos. Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor from the University of Texas at Austin, states that such examples demonstrate that states are not actively pursuing their interest in protecting fetal life as they should be. 

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has largely been on the side of conservative Christians who sought exemptions from certain regulations, such as providing insurance coverage for contraception or baking wedding cakes for gay couples. However, progressive religious people have also had some success in claiming exemptions in lower courts. In 2019, a Unitarian faith-driven activist was acquitted of helping unauthorised migrants in Arizona. Abortion providers could potentially use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to argue that their faith compels them to perform abortions for those who need or request the procedure. The same could be said of doctors in states that have imposed restrictions on transgender health care. 

Prior to the passing of the federal RFRA in 1993, some conservative individuals were not in favor of it. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops even went as far as to lobby against it. However, the anti-abortion camp eventually agreed and states began creating their own versions. One of these states was Indiana where Mike Pence, an anti-abortion evangelical, signed it into law. As it turns out, he may come to regret it in the future. 

This piece was featured in the American section of the printed version with the title "Religious abortions".