Satanists in Missouri are fighting for their right to an immediate abortion, alleging abortion waiting periods violate their religious beliefs.

On May 8, one Satanist, identified as Mary, walked into a Planned Parenthood in St Louis, requesting that an abortion to be carried out. When the staff informed her that she would have to wait for 72 hours, a waiting period mandated by the state, as well as undergo an ultrasound before the procedure, she handed them a letter that read as follows:

“As an adherent to the principles of the Satanic Temple, my sincerely held religious beliefs are: My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone.”

Mary’s letter went on to elucidate her religious right to decision making and argued that Missouri’s law mandating a woman to wait for a certain period of time before undergoing an abortion violated her aforementioned religious beliefs.

The letter ended, saying, “I respectfully request that you provide me with an abortion today.”

A brief while after handing over this letter, Mary, with the help of Satanic Temple, a nationwide organization for Satanists, filed a lawsuit against the state of Missouri.

With the help of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Mary and Satanic Temple hope to achieve the same success as have their Christian counterparts in avoiding the need to provide contraception to women or baking cakes for same-sex weddings. They also hope to knock down the contentious 72-hour abortion waiting period, as mandated in Missouri as well as in three other states. Under the existing law, women are compelled to reconsider their decision for a period of 72 hours after first requesting an abortion. On May 7, Oklahoma tripled its requirement from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Last month, Mary reached out to the nearest branch of Satanic Temple, which connected her to the organization’s national headquarters. There, she was received by Satanic Temple spokesperson and founder Doug Mesner, who is better known by his pseudonym Lucien Greaves. Greaves set up the organization two years ago to allow a meeting place for Satanists from across the United States and address issues that they may have. He now estimates membership number to be in the tens of thousands.

Mesner, who was eager to pursue Mary’s case, realized after the Hobby Lobby ruling in July last year that his organization would come across one such moment to use religious freedom in the fight for women’s reproductive rights.

“The Decision is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Doe’s belief in the Tenets,” the lawsuit states. “Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the ‘exercise of religion’ protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

One of the organization’s seven fundamental tenets states that beliefs should abide by the best scientific understandings of the world. Mesner however argues that his tenet is being violated in Missouri and several other states.

“The informed consent material women are supposed to be considering is null and void in our opinion—it’s medically irrelevent and scientifically illegitimate,” he said.

Mesner and other leaders of Satanic Temple prepared an informed consent exemption form and waited to act at a good time. That time surfaced on Friday, after Mary approached them.

“This is something we thought about for a long time and it’s been in process for a long time,” Mesner said. The Temple has launched a crowd-sourced fundraising campaign for the legal fees, but has only received $2,085 in donations so far. We have theocrats pushing an agenda through legislation and it’s time we show that other people have different values and are just as deserving as protections. We’re not making Christians get abortions if they feel it’s wrong. They put a burden on us.”

Jesse Choper, a professor of public law at Berkeley, is not convinced that the organization is going to win the case however.

“There is no right to an exemption for religion unless the state law singles out religion for adverse treatment,” says Choper. “But it does not single it out, it applies to everybody no matter their religion or lack of religion. It says anyone who wants abortion has to wait 72 hours.”

However, Choper said that Satanic Temple could win the case if the Supreme Court ruled that the 72-hour waiting period is in fact unconstitutional.

“In 1992, it ruled that 24 hours does not constitute undue burden. Now, 72 hours is three times 24 hours, so what are chances of them upholding 72 hours?” Choper said. “I would say they need to have some pretty good reasons as to why 24 hours is not adequate.”

Caitlin Borgmann, a professor at CUNY Law, does not agree with Choper though. She believes that the RFRA was created exactly for this reason, so religious groups could seek exemption from blanket laws.

“RFRA was enacted to say, It doesn’t matter if the law wasn’t targeting the group, it can be generally applicable if it substantially involves religion,” she said. “Does it substantially burden religion? I think they certainly have an argument that it does.”

As a matter of fact, Borgmann said that the case filed by Satanic Temple is exactly what those supporting RFRA feared initially. During the 1990s, when the Congress was debating over the subject, Catholic interest groups like National Right to Life Committee sought to be exempted from the bill that would disallow the law’s use in offering abortions, explained Borgmann.

“Whether they win or not, who knows,” she said. “But I think it’s certainly a viable claim and in some ways a significantly stronger claim than was made in Hobby Lobby and more consistent with the original underlying principles of RFRA, which would protect individuals and religious groups in how they practice religion. It was inevitable that someone would use RFRA in ways the conservative groups are very uncomfortable with. … Ultimately [they] aren’t going to be able to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to RFRA. They can’t hope to limit it only to the claims they find legitimate.”

Mesner believes his latest case would achieve more than merely angering the religious conservatives.

“We’re not really concerned about creating huge backlash and reaction from opposition, we care about women’s reproductive rights,” Mesner said. “This isn’t kind of fight you get into on a lark or on a whim for a laugh—this is far deeper than that.”

Photo Credits: RT.com