Jewish trio launch legal challenge against Kentucky abortion restrictions

The lawsuit claims that the “Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs have been infringed: they are Jewish and Jewish law (“halacha”) asked and answered the question of fetal personhood thousands of years ago and rabbis, commentators and Jewish legal scholars have repeatedly confirmed these answers in the intervening millennia.

“While a fetus is deserving of some level of respect under halacha, the birth giver takes precedence. Jews have never believed that life begins at conception,” it continued. 

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who plans to stand for state governor next year, has vowed to fight the lawsuit, in which he is named as a defendant.

The Republican politician has defended Kentucky’s Human Life Protection Act and Heartbeat Law, writing in September that: “Kentucky’s Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion; this matter has clearly been given to the people’s representatives in the Kentucky General Assembly, and they have spoken on this issue.”

The state also has an 8th November referendum scheduled, in which voters will be able to decide on plans to bring forward a constitutional amendment that would eliminate abortion rights in the state.

Another challenge to the laws will also be heard by the state’s Supreme Court the same month.

This week’s fresh lawsuit filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court argues that the question of when human life begins is open to debate, claiming that it “is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions.”

“Judaism has never defined life beginning at conception,” it reads, adding: “millennia of commentary from Jewish scholars has reaffirmed Judaism’s commitment to reproductive rights.”

“Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth”.

The suit argues that the new laws violate Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the women say the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion” except in compelling circumstances, and that the “least restrictive means” must be used to do so.

Lisa Sobel, one of the three plaintiffs, told local media that “As a mom, as a woman, this directly affects me, it affects my healthcare.

“And then it’s a personal affront to my personal religious views, on top of it. As somebody who is a person of faith, that’s just wrong to me.”

The suit also argues that Kentucky’s new restrictions violate the freedom to undergo in vitro fertilisation (IVF), through which two of the plaintiffs have conceived a child.

IVF often results in the creation of more embryos than the biological parents wish to carry through as pregnancies. This means embryos must either be frozen or destroyed.

The suit claims that the “plaintiff’s religious beliefs demand that they have more children through IVF, yet the law forces plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges” as a result of the state laws on fetal homicide.

“This dilemma forces plaintiffs to abandon their sincere religious beliefs of having more children by limiting access to IVF and substantially burdens their right to freely exercise these sincerely held religious beliefs,” the suit continued.

Similar challenges based on religious freedom have also been attempted in Indiana and Florida.

Several leading Orthodox organisations have praised the Dobbs v Jackson decision that overturned the US' constitutional right to an abortion, while highlighting that Jewish law permits abortion in certain limited circumstances.

Jewish legal scholars agree that the endangerment of a woman’s health due to pregnancy can justify an for abortion, however, there remains disagreement about what qualifies as endangerment. 

However, polling suggests that a majority of all American Jews are supportive of abortion in most circumstances.