The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Formula Comes Full Circle in Florida

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
User avatar
Thelma Harper
Princess
Princess
Posts: 19070
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

"The Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor, a Jewish synagogue in Florida, has sued the state saying that Florida’s new restrictive abortion laws violate their religious faith. As a matter of faith, they reject the notion that life begins at conception and further believe that the pregnant person’s health and life matter. To be sure, the Satanic Temple has filed similar cases in particularly restrictive states over the last decade, but mainstream religions have been sitting on the sidelines as restrictions in a number of states have become increasingly inconsistent with their faiths.

L’Dor Va-Dor’s legal theory is that the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) gives them the right to challenge state laws that substantially burden their faith. They are absolutely correct: a RFRA hands the believer the power to invalidate a law that burdens their religious beliefs, and that includes abortion laws. Their argument has heft in that a state law that affirmatively prevents medical treatment to save the life or health of a pregnant person is surely a substantial burden on their belief in the right of the pregnant to live.

I am actually surprised it took this long for a mainstream religious organization to file such a suit. The theory has been available since the RFRA of 1993 was signed into law. True, it was then unavailable starting in 1997 after the Supreme Court held RFRA unconstitutional in Boerne v. Flores, but when the Democrats blinked and let the RFRA of 2000 pass–and the Rutherford Institute fanned out to the 50 states to enact state RFRAs–the religious liberty weapons they needed to fight for their beliefs about abortion were available."

https://verdict.justia.com/2022/06/20/t ... in-florida

Very intriguing read.
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
Lemons
Donated
Donated
Princess
Princess
Posts: 10044
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:22 pm

Unread post

I think the Atheist Organization should also sue. Separation of church and states leaves no room for arguments with God in it. And religious people are able to follow their religious beliefs that life begins at conception.
User avatar
BobCobbMagob
Marchioness
Marchioness
Posts: 729
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:37 am

Unread post

In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. For more details about the consequences of this doctrine, see Abortion. Judaism completely rejects the notion of original sin.

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm







Does that mean late term abortion is on the table again?
User avatar
Thelma Harper
Princess
Princess
Posts: 19070
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:46 pm

Unread post

BobCobbMagob wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:00 am In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. For more details about the consequences of this doctrine, see Abortion. Judaism completely rejects the notion of original sin.

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm







Does that mean late term abortion is on the table again?
Why would you think that?
306/232

But I'm still the winner! They lied! They cheated! They stole the election!
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic