Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Top Missouri officials are asking that a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging the state’s mandated 72-hour waiting period for an abortion be thrown out — but the Satanists say that’s proof they have a strong case.

The lawsuit is on behalf of a Satanic Temple member and Missouri resident using the pseudonym “Mary.”

It states that Mary, who is pregnant, went in May to Planned Parenthood with the intention of getting an abortion. She was told she had to wait 72 hours, at which point she presented a waiver from the Satanic Temple saying the waiting period violated her religious beliefs. She was still denied, prompting the lawsuit, according to Patheos.

The state currently mandates abortion providers give pregnant patients anti-abortion propaganda material on the physical characteristics of fetuses and their ability to feel pain at 22 weeks of gestation. Women must then wait 72 hours, after being given the option to see an ultrasound and hear a fetal heart beat before receiving an abortion.

This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause which prevents the government from favoring one religion over another, or lack thereof, according to the Satanic Temple’s lawsuit.

“Women whose decision to terminate a pregnancy is informed by her deeply-held belief in Satanic principles of bodily autonomy and scientific deference should not be made to endure State-sanctioned proselytization of a conflicting religious perspective,” Greaves wrote.

Greaves apparently does not believe the case will be dismissed and said Thursday the Temple is in the process of assembling expert witnesses and fundraising for the legal effort. They have already raised more than $33,000.

kalm wrote:Because..............SATAN!!!

Abortion is legal. How can the state deny her religious rights?

Top Missouri officials are asking that a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging the state’s mandated 72-hour waiting period for an abortion be thrown out — but the Satanists say that’s proof they have a strong case.

The lawsuit is on behalf of a Satanic Temple member and Missouri resident using the pseudonym “Mary.”

It states that Mary, who is pregnant, went in May to Planned Parenthood with the intention of getting an abortion. She was told she had to wait 72 hours, at which point she presented a waiver from the Satanic Temple saying the waiting period violated her religious beliefs. She was still denied, prompting the lawsuit, according to Patheos.

The state currently mandates abortion providers give pregnant patients anti-abortion propaganda material on the physical characteristics of fetuses and their ability to feel pain at 22 weeks of gestation. Women must then wait 72 hours, after being given the option to see an ultrasound and hear a fetal heart beat before receiving an abortion.

This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause which prevents the government from favoring one religion over another, or lack thereof, according to the Satanic Temple’s lawsuit.

“Women whose decision to terminate a pregnancy is informed by her deeply-held belief in Satanic principles of bodily autonomy and scientific deference should not be made to endure State-sanctioned proselytization of a conflicting religious perspective,” Greaves wrote.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/satanic ... tion-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Because..............SATAN!!!

Abortion is legal. How can the state deny her religious rights?



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/satanic ... tion-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Welcome to the club, Satan.

89Hen wrote:

Baldy wrote: Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Welcome to the club, Satan.

Beat me to it.

JohnStOnge wrote:The obvious rebutal is that abortion is a direct, fatal attack upon another individual.

It's like saying that the Establishment Clause protects the right to engage in human sacrifice.

JohnStOnge wrote:The obvious rebutal is that abortion is a direct, fatal attack upon another individual.

It's like saying that the Establishment Clause protects the right to engage in human sacrifice.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Because..............SATAN!!!

Abortion is legal. How can the state deny her religious rights?



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/satanic ... tion-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Welcome to the club, Satan.

JohnStOnge wrote:The obvious rebutal is that abortion is a direct, fatal attack upon another individual.

It's like saying that the Establishment Clause protects the right to engage in human sacrifice.

Baldy wrote: Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Baldy wrote: Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Except abortions are time sensitive.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Except abortions are time sensitive.

I don't think 72 hours matters much in either case

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:

I don't think 72 hours matters much in either case

Of course, but you ain't pregnant. You just look like you are.

grizzaholic wrote:

Baldy wrote: Well, owning a gun is legal as well and you still have a waiting period before you can buy one.

Welcome to the club, Satan.

Wrong. I can walk into, for instance Cabelas, and walk out with whatever I choose in minutes...probably takes longer to walk to the checkout. I always thought you were more informed...OH, that is right. Dummies in dumb states try, and continue to succeed in fucking over the 99.999999% because of fucktards.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Beat me to it.

Hasn't been challenged from a religious point of view yet. You're missing the point.

Why do you hate religious freedom?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:
Hasn't been challenged from a religious point of view yet. You're missing the point.

Why do you hate religious freedom?

Baloney Kalm and you know it. I aint biting on that one.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Of course, but you ain't pregnant. You just look like you are.

doesnt matter. science is available to us all, Warren

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
doesnt matter. science is available to us all, Warren

This ain't about science, Ralph Mouth.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: Baloney Kalm and you know it. I aint biting on that one.

You don't have to bite. But you both did miss the point.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:

This ain't about science, Ralph Mouth.

Blow me, Potsie.

72 hours isn't significant in terms of gestation. Only if mom's health is in immediate danger, and then the 72 hours doesn't apply anuway.

Thank you science!

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Blow me, Potsie.

72 hours isn't significant in terms of gestation. Only if mom's health is in immediate danger, and then the 72 hours doesn't apply anuway.

Thank you science!

It ain't about gestation, Warren Mullaney.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You don't have to bite. But you both did miss the point.

BTW the analogy is good- it doesn't matter if the waiting period is challenged on religious or health and safety reasons- the question is two fold- whether the religious claim is based on established doctrine (if wanton killing is established satanic doctrine then let's see them argue for that- but you can't just make up your doctrine) and second whether or not the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm, vs society's interest in health and safety (in this case, that of the fetus)