Reference no: EM133628698

After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health decision, a state enacted a law that banned abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. The only exception involved whether the health of the mother would be jeopardized by continuing the pregnancy. This year, members of the Legislature wish to modify last year's legislation by requiring abortions to be completed in the first six weeks of pregnancy.

In this state, a local religious group is objecting to these laws claiming that the enactment of the laws violates how they interpret the Bible and violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. They base their claim on the following text of the
Bible:

When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman's husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Book of Exodus 21:22-25

The religious group claims these words mean that if someone causes a miscarriage to take place, they are obligated to pay financial damages only; the case is not treated as manslaughter pursuant to the Bible. (God" Law) The "other damage" that would result in a more serious penalty would be the death of the pregnant person herself (or some other serious punishment relating to the damage caused "eye for eye, tooth for tooth...") In other words, causing the termination of a pregnancy is not, considered manslaughter. They fear that if a member has an abortion after the 15th week, they would be subject to be charged with manslaughter.

This religious group further claims the new law prohibits women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom. Under their faith and interpretation of the Bible, a fetus is not a live human being. As an extension of that Bible interpretation, if a woman's health is threatened - even her emotional wellbeing - by the fetus, she is entitled to choose to abort the fetus.

You are a judge and this case is now presented to you to decide.

1. What arguments do you anticipate the plaintiffs making to support their position that this new abortion law should not apply to them? (Please provide cases to support their positions and quotes from cases.)

2. What arguments would the state make to justify this legislation (Please provide cases to support the State's position and quotes from cases.)

3. Offer YOUR opinion in determining which side wins and explaining why that side should prevail, again citing cases and quotes to support your conclusions.