Satan and The Law How The Satanic Temple Is Fighting Christian Hegemony in Reproductive Healthcare

22 Hous. J. Health L.
& Policy 1
Copyright © 2023 Hannah Wimberley
Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy
SATAN AND THE LAW: HOW THE SATANIC

TEMPLE IS FIGHTING CHRISTIAN
HEGEMONY IN REPRODUCTIVE
HEALTHCARE
Hannah Wimberley
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 2
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ABORTION .................... 4
Christian Views of Abortion Before the Twentieth Century ...... 4
Abortion and Politics in the Twentieth Century and
Beyond........................................................................................ 6
FOUNDING AND EARLY EFFORTS OF THE SATANIC TEMPLE..................... 12
RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS IN MISSOURI AND TEXAS ......................... 16
Missouri’s Restrictions on Abortion ............................................ 16
Texas’ Heartbeat Bill ...................................................................... 18
THE SATANIC TEMPLE’S ACCESS TO ABORTION LAWSUITS ...................... 21
The Satanic Temple v. Missouri ................................................... 21
The Satanic Temple v. Texas ......................................................... 23
FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST: CHALLENGING
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS THROUGH A NEW LENS........................ 25
Abortion Access Under the Fourteenth Amendment ............... 25
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and The Religious Freedom
Restoration Act........................................................................ 28
Copycat Hobby Lobby: Religious Freedom and Abortion
Access ....................................................................................... 30
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 35
2 HOUS. J. HEALTH L. & POL’Y
INTRODUCTION
Is the United States (“U.S.”) a Christian Nation? This question has
been debated time and again throughout U.S. history1 and has once
again risen through the recent heartbeat bills passed in several states
across the nation.2 These heartbeat bills effectively ban a woman from
obtaining an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, the moment after
which an ultrasound can sometimes detect cardiac activity in the
fetus.3 These restrictions on access to abortions rest on a widely held
Christian presumption that a fertilized embryo is a human life; hence
abortion is murder.4 Underlying this highly contested and
controversial topic lie questions of bodily autonomy, religious
morality, and how the two intertwine in lawmaking.
Enter the Satanic Temple, a non-theistic religious group that hopes
to use unconventional means to change the trajectory of the regulation
of people’s bodies.5 By co-opting the name of one of the most detested
characters in the Christian faith, the Satanic Temple has garnered
negative attention from Christian organizations, individuals, and
politicians.6 Although the Satanic Temple is often mistaken for the
Church of Satan, a distinct organization that preceded the founding of
the Satanic Temple7, or just as often as a devil-worshiping enterprise,
1 See Is America a Christian Nation?, AMS. UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE,
https://www.au.org/about-au/history/is-american-a-christian-nation/ (last visited Sept.14,
2021).
2 ELYSSA SPITZER & NORA ELLMANN, AM. PROGRESS, STATE ABORTION LEGISLATION IN 2021 A
REVIEW OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ACTIONS 5 (2021),
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2021/09/21/503999/state-abortion-
legislation-2021/.
3 Bethany Irvine, Why “Heartbeat Bill” is a Misleading Name for Texas’ Near-Total Abortion Ban,
TEX. TRIB. (Sept. 2, 2021, 4:00PM), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-
heartbeat-bill/.
4 Marie Griffith, Time for Deeper Conversations Around “Heartbeat” Bills, RELIGION & POL. (July
10, 2019), https://religionandpolitics.org/2019/07/10/time-for-deeper-conversations-around-
heartbeat-bills/.
5 About Us, THE SATANIC TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us (last visited
Sept. 21, 2022); See The Satanic Temple Religious Reproductive Rights, THE SATANIC TEMPLE,
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns (last visited Sept. 20, 2022).
6 HAIL SATAN? (Hard Working Movies 2019).
7 Church of Satan vs. The Satanic Temple, SATANIC TEMPLE,
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-temple (last visited Oct. 21,
2021). The Church of Satan was founded by Anton Szandor LaVey in the 1960s. Id. Although
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 3
members of the Satanic Temple follow their own set of beliefs

prescribed in their seven fundamental tenets.8 These tenets encourage
a belief in science and compassion for all, among other important
morals.9 Despite the Satanic Temple existing as a fringe religious group
for only a short time, they boast congregations all over the world and
have gained a flurry of media recognition for their recent lawsuits
challenging the contentious heartbeat bills passed in several States.10
Although abortion rights are a topic of frequent discussion and
analysis, the Satanic Temple is pointedly arguing that restriction on a
person’s right to an abortion infringes on their members’ religious
freedoms and deeply held beliefs.11 The primary reasoning behind this
argument rests on the constitutional right to free exercise of religion,
as guaranteed by the First Amendment, Supreme Court precedent,
and state laws that prevent infringement on one’s religious freedoms.12
This Comment will include a detailed exploration of the
mechanisms used by the Satanic Temple, how they mirror arguments
frequently employed by the religious right, and how the Satanic
Temple is highlighting the incongruous nature of the relationship
between religion and reproductive lawmaking in the U.S. This
discussion will be preceded by an exploration of the long history of the
Christian pro-life belief and agenda, from the early views of abortion
in the Christian faith to the catalyzing effect of Roe v. Wade, and finally,
the current religious narrative surrounding abortion and how pro-life
views have shaped reproductive healthcare. Additionally, this
Comment will look at the founding of the Satanic Temple, including
its varied initiatives and stances on political action throughout the U.S.
LaVey claimed to be an Atheist, there is some evidence that LaVey believed in the existence
of the Devil, id. The modern-day Church of Satan is apolitical and has vehemently opposed
the actions of The Satanic Temple. Id. Followers of The Church of Satan argue that the Church
is the one true Satanic organization, and The Satanic Temple has misappropriated Satanism.
Id. The Church of Satan is largely inactive and does not have a physical location. Id.
8 About Us, supra note 5.
9 Id.
10 Find A Congregation, SATANIC TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/find-a-
congregation (last visited Sept. 21, 2022); see also The Satanic Temple v. Texas, SATANIC TEMPLE,
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/texas-lawsuit (last visited Sept 14, 2021).
11 The Satanic Temple Religious Reproductive Rights, supra note 5.
12 Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Doe v. Hellerstedt, No. 4:21-CV-00387
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2021).
As the debate over access to abortion and reproductive healthcare

continues in the U.S., the Satanic Temple has inserted itself into the
conversation by taking legal action against the state of Texas,13 which
has come under scrutiny for passing one of the most restrictive
abortion laws in the United States.14 Through its lawsuit, the Satanic
Temple has continued their efforts to protect its religious beliefs and
freedoms and to further its mission to ensure people’s access to
comprehensive reproductive healthcare.15
This Comment will discuss the arguments and tactics used by the
Satanic Temple’s Texas lawsuit, how they closely mirror previously
litigated religious freedom claims, and the implications their lawsuit
has in the discussion of abortion lawmaking.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ABORTION
Christian Views of Abortion Before the Twentieth Century

There are many denominations in the Christian faith; views on
abortion differ across denominations and between individual
Christians.16 However, Evangelicalism, and the modern Evangelical
view of abortion, has proliferated across the U.S. and spread into
politics and legislation.17 Historically, abortion has been somewhat of
a non-issue for many in the Christian faith.18 Looking at texts spanning
13 The Satanic Temple v. Texas, supra note 10.

14 Rob Picheta, Texas’ Abortion Law is One of the Most Restrictive in the Developed World, CNN
(Sept. 3, 2021, 5:06 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/03/world/how-texas-abortion-law-
compares-to-world-intl-cmd/index.html.
15 The Satanic Temple Religious Reproductive Rights, supra note 5; see the Satanic Temple v. Texas,
supra note 10.
16 See David Masci, Where Major Religious Groups Stand on Abortion, PEW RSCH. CTR. (June 21,
2016), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-
stand-on-abortion/.
17 See John Fea et al., Evangelicalism and Politics, OAH
https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2018/november/evangelicalism-and-politics/ (last visited
Sept. 14, 2021).
18 See Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey & Marjorie Brahms Signer, Religious Perspectives on the
Abortion Decision: The Sacredness of Women’s Lives, Morality and Values, and Social Justice, 35
N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 281, 283 (2011).
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 5
over a 1,500 year time frame, pre-modern Christians had a varied

approach to abortion and contraception.19
In fact, for hundreds of years before the modern Evangelical view
of abortion, the Christian Church encouraged women to explore
pregnancy prevention and different reproductive options.20 Some of
the earliest Christian writings went as far as to discourage marriage
and reproduction.21 There is also evidence that pre-modern Christians
“actively developed reproductive options for women.”22
Official abortion laws in the United States were not recorded until
1821.23 These 19th-century abortion restrictions were a result of the
formation of the American Medical Association (AMA).24 Before these
restrictions, fetal viability was determined by “quickening,” the time
during which a pregnant individual began to feel a fetus move in their
womb, which typically happens between the 14th and 26th week of
pregnancy.25 However, 19th century doctors found “quickening” to be
an illegitimate means of determining fetal viability.26 Arguing that
women lacked the proper medical knowledge to determine when life
began, and fearing losing business to homeopaths and midwives,
19 See Luis Josue Sales, As Texas Ban on Abortion Goes into Effect, a Religious Scholar Explains that
Pre-Modern Christian Attitudes on Marriage and Reproductive Rights were Quite Different, THE
CONVERSATION (Sept. 2, 2021), https://theconversation.com/as-texas-ban-on-abortion-goes-
into-effect-a-religion-scholar-explains-that-pre-modern-christian-attitudes-on-marriage-
and-reproductive-rights-were-quite-different-167170.
20 See id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Ranana Dine, Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right, CTR. FOR
AM. PROGRESS (Aug. 8, 2013), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-
getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/.
24 See Anna M. Peterson, From Commonplace to Controversial: The Different Histories of Abortion in
Europe and the United States, ORIGINS (Nov. 2012),
https://origins.osu.edu/article/commonplace-controversial-different-histories-abortion-
europe-and-united-states; AMA History, AMA, https://www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-
history/ama-history (last visited Oct. 14, 2021). The American Medical Association was
founded in 1845 with its goals being scientific advancement, standards for medical education,
launching a program of medical ethics, and improved public health, among other things.
AMA History, supra. The AMA began their antiabortion campaign in 1857 which led to many
American doctors joining religious authorities to move towards passing antiabortion laws.
AMA History, supra.
25 Dine, supra note 23.
26 See id.
doctors sought to regulate the practice of abortion.27 Upon denouncing

the practice of abortion, the AMA gained the support of the Roman
Catholic Church, but Protestant churches remained neutral, if not
agreeable, to the idea of abortion.28 Now entirely in the hands of the
medical profession, women held a diminished role in making
reproductive choices for their own bodies.29 This, coupled with fears
surrounding slow-population growth and smaller family sizes, and
notions of white nationalism, led abortion restrictions to spread
throughout the U.S.30
Abortion and Politics in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Before the mid-to-late twentieth century, abortion was sometimes
referred to as a “Catholic issue.”31 Catholics have long opposed
abortion and believe “direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed
either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to moral law.”32
However, in the early 20th century, religious leaders in the Protestant
27 See id.; see also Jennifer L. Holland, Abolishing Abortion: The History of the Pro-Life Movement in
America, OAH https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-
history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/ (“Historians have noted that [the physicians]
medical insight was not a result of any advancement in embryonic knowledge … instead the
fetus was merely a stand-in for a broader cultural project. Here, the movement tapped into
concerns over women’s increasing education, autonomy, and the extension of rights, as it
reasserted women’s connection to and limitation by their own reproductive anatomy.
Women’s bodies, not their words or actions, confessed to doctors the ‘naturalness’ of
uninterrupted reproduction and the ‘truth’ about fetal life. Bodily processes could not ‘speak
for themselves,’ though they did need doctors to translate.”).
28 See Peterson, supra note 24.
29 See Dine, supra note 23.
30 See Peterson, supra note 24.
31 Randall Balmer, The Real Origins of the Religious Right, POLITICO (May 27, 2014),
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/.
32 Respect for Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching, U.S. CONF. CATH. BISHOPS,
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/respect-for-
unborn-human-life (last visited Sept. 23, 2022); Rev. William Saunders, Church has Always
Condemned Abortion, ARLINGTON CATH. HERALD, reprinted in The Catholic Church and Abortion,
CATH. NEWS AGENCY, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55397/the-catholic-
church-and-abortion (last visited Oct. 19, 2022) (“Human life is sacred because from its
beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special
relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its
beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly
to destroy an innocent human being”).
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 7
Church recognized these restrictions as leading to an increase in the

number of unsafe and illegal abortions and declared the lack of
abortion access to be a medical crisis. Protestant clergy, in the years
prior to Roe v. Wade, actively participated in supporting women
seeking abortions by providing counseling and referrals to safe
abortion practitioners.33
The pro-life movement gained traction in early 1980s, following
the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.34 In Roe, the court held
that one’s right to an abortion is a part of an individual’s right to
privacy afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and a state cannot infringe on one’s decision to get an
abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.35
Roe provided sufficient fuel for the small groups of already
existing, largely Catholic, activists to push their anti-abortion ideology
on the general public.36 These groups initially framed their arguments
around individual fetal rights, but they eventually began linking their
campaigns with civil and human rights efforts.37 Some groups went as
far as to say abortion was “worse than the Jewish Holocaust,” while
others focused on legal precedent, linking the decision in Roe to the
1857 decision in Dred Scott, which held that black people were not U.S.
citizens and not protected by the U.S. Constitution.38
Roe’s landmark decision also became political fuel for the
upcoming presidential election.39 Hoping to deny President Carter a
second term and armed with a moral battle cry, conservative activist
Paul Weyrich saw abortion as a political opportunity.40 President
33 Veazey & Signer, supra note 18, at 286.

34 See Holland, supra note 27.
35 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 114 (1973).
36 See Holland, supra note 27.
37 Id.
38 Holland, supra note 27 (“Both [Roe and Dred Scott], [pro-life activists] argued made some
groups ‘less than human’ and degraded life. While not actually working on civil rights and
human rights issues, pro-life activists used those causes to make the fetus a sympathetic
victim and pro-life activists into modern day abolitionists.”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.
393, 393 (1857).
39 See Balmer, supra note 31.
40 Balmer, supra note 31; see also Bruce Weber, Paul Weyrich, 66, a Conservative Strategist, Dies,
N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 18, 2008), https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/19weyrich.html.
Paul Weyrich was an active and influential conservative strategist in the 20th century. Weber,
Carter had denied the pro-life’s push for a constitutional amendment

banning abortion, and Weyrich thought to mobilize other conservative
leaders and large groups of Evangelical voters to oppose President
Carter.41 One notable tactic used by these conservative leaders to fan
the flames of Evangelical outcry included producing a film series
depicting graphic and inflammatory images of abortions.42 Carter’s
denial of a constitutional amendment ultimately led to outrage among
the Evangelical community following Weyrich’s efforts.43
As views throughout the U.S. began to trend pro-life, The
Southern Baptist Convention (“SBC”), one of the most predominant
evangelical Christian denominations in the U.S.,44 changed its stance
on abortion in 1980.45 SBC had passed several resolutions before and
after Roe that did not denounce the practice of abortions in specific
instances.46 Although previously noting fetal deformity and
conception through rape or incest as exceptions to the SBC’s
preferences against abortion,47 in 2021, the SBC firmly denounced the
practice of abortion for any reason in a new resolution.48 Now stating
that abortion is unequivocally murder and the SBC “reject[s] any
supra. He was well known for being instrumental in the Republican Party’s rise to power in
the 1980s. Weber, supra. James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on Families, a Christian
ministry organization, stated “Paul Weyrich fought tirelessly for three decades to protect the
preborn, preserve traditional marriage and ensure that people of faith had a voice in shaping
the public policy that affected their lives. Had there been no Paul Weyrich, there would be no
conservative movement as we know it.” Weber, supra.
41 Balmer, supra note 31.
42 Id. (noting that one film in the series depicted plastic baby dolls along the shores of the Dead
Sea).
43 Id.
44 Dalia Fahmy, 7 Facts about Southern Baptists, PEW RSCH. CTR. (June 7, 2019),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/;
Religious Landscape Study, PEW RSCH. CTR., https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-
study/ (last visited Oct. 14, 2021) (indicating that America’s religious makeup consists of
approximately 25.4% Evangelical Protestants, 9.2% Baptists, and 5.2% Southern Baptist
Convention Members).
45 Denny Burk et al., Why we Opposed an Anti-Abortion Resolution at the Southern Baptists
Convention, PUB. DISCOURSE (June 22, 2021),
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2021/06/76465/.
46 Id.
47 Resolution on Abortion, SBC (June 1, 1971), https://www.sbc.net/resource-
library/resolutions/resolution-on-abortion-2/.
48 Burk et al., supra note 45.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 9
position that allows for any exceptions to the legal protection of our
preborn neighbors, compromises God’s holy standard of justice, or
promotes any God-hating partiality.”49 The SBC slightly changed its
stance on abortion following the 1980 resolution, stating that abortion
should only be performed to save the “physical life of the mother.”50
However, in 2021, the SBC once again stated that abortion must be
abolished entirely.51
As evangelical Christians joined the fight against abortion, various
pro-life groups, some more radical than others, began appearing
throughout the United States.52 With abortion now a major topic
among not just Catholic Americans but people across various
Christian denominations, fetal life has become a central topic in the
religious and political atmosphere.53
Today, Christian pro-life activists frequently argue that human life
begins at the moment of conception. While the Bible specifically
mentions topics like sex and reproduction, the issue of abortion is
never explicitly discussed.54 Despite Christian scriptures having no
direct mention of abortion, many in the pro-life movement have
interpreted old-testament biblical passages to support their position.55
For example, a common verse used for pro-life arguments comes from
Psalm 139: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in
my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and
wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.”56
However, biblical scholars differ in their interpretations of this
passage, and there is no consensus that any passage within the Bible
directly speaks on the issue of abortion.57
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 On Abolishing Abortion, SBC (June 21, 2021), https://www.sbc.net/resource-
library/resolutions/on-abolishing-abortion/.
52 Holland, supra note 27.
53 See id.
54 Veazey & Signer, supra note 18, at 283.
55 See id. at 283-84; Burk et al., supra note 45.
56 Michael Luo, On Abortion, it’s the Bible of Ambiguity, N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 13, 2005)
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/on-abortion-its-the-bible-of-
ambiguity.html.
57 Id.
Expertly wielding their biblical interpretations and religious

arguments, pro-life activists have successfully infiltrated the politics
and legislation of abortion access. Modern-day anti-abortion groups
continue to play into the emotions of individuals. The Family Research
Council, a predominant pro-life organization that has been operating
since 1983, boldly states, “few things are more detrimental to human
dignity than the practice of Abortion. A child in the womb is a distinct,
developing, whole human being. Each time a mother decides – or a
father pressures – to end such a life, it is a profound
tragedy.”58Although studies have shown that the majority of U.S.
adults say abortion should be legal in all or most instances, abortion
access versus restriction remains a highly contentious issue due to
differing political and religious views.59
In the last decade, increasingly restrictive abortion laws have
started appearing in states across the U.S.60 These include Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and
Texas, among others, with Texas having one of the most restrictive
laws.61 It is likely not coincidental that these states also have some of
the highest percentages of “highly religious” adults, with Alabama
holding the top spot.62 Additionally, although not a direct reflection of
the religious makeup of all politicians in the U.S., the 117th U.S.
58 Abortion, FAM. RSCH. COUNCIL, https://www.frc.org/abortion (last visited Nov. 17, 2021).
Family Research Council (FRC) was founded in 1983. Id. Their mission is to “advance faith,
family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. Id.
59 Hannah Hartig, About Six-in-Ten Americans Say Abortion Should be Legal in all or Most Cases,
PEW RSCH. CTR. (June 13, 2022), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-
six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/.
60 See generally Kaia Hubbard & Christopher Wolf, Where State Abortion Laws Stand Without Roe,
U.S. NEWS (Aug. 30, 2022), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/a-guide-to-
abortion-laws-by-state (explaining the status of state-based abortion laws, indicating that 13
states have completely banned the procedure); Rutgers University, ‘Informed Consent’ States
Often give Women Considering Abortions Inaccurate Information, SCI. DAILY (Feb. 29, 2016)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160229153120.htm (noting that the number
of restrictive, state-based abortion laws has dramatically increased since 2010).
61 See Hubbard, supra note 60.
62 Michael Lipka & Benjamin Wormald, How Religious is Your State?, PEW RSCH. CTR. (Feb. 29,
2016), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/how-religious-is-your-
state/?state=alabama.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 11
Congress is predominantly made up of members who identify as

Christian.63
Restrictive abortion laws typically require “informed consent.”64
Informed consent creates an obligation for an abortion provider to give
specific information to a patient seeking an abortion and perform
certain steps with the patient before undergoing the procedure.65
Patient counseling, a mandatory waiting period of at least 24 hours,
and a required ultrasound are among the common requirements for
informed consent when obtaining an abortion.66 While informed
consent is a fundamental legal, ethical, and medical standard, this
standard of care is often undermined by policymakers that oppose
abortion.67 Informed consent should include accurate, unbiased,
relevant, and helpful medical information that is presented to a patient
before a procedure, but pro-life advocates often seek to
inappropriately withhold information or provide scientifically
inaccurate information about the procedure.68 Misinformation relating
to a negative psychological impact after an abortion is not an
uncommon element of the literature provided to patients pre-abortion
procedure.69 Other misinformation relating to the physiological
impacts of abortions is also among the material disclosed to patients.70
63 Faith on the Hill, PEW RSCH. CTR. (Jan. 4, 2021), https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/04/faith-

on-the-hill-2021/ (indicating that the majority of Congress is protestant with approximately
88% of the members of Congress identifying as Christian, while only 65% the general public
of the U.S associate with a Christian denomination).
64 Chinué Turner Richardson & Elizabeth Nash, Misinformed Consent: The Medical Accuracy of
State-Developed Abortion Counseling Materials, GUTTMACHER INST. (Oct. 23, 2006),
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2006/10/misinformed-consent-medical-accuracy-state-
developed-abortion-counseling-materials.
65 See id.
66 Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion, GUTTMACHER INST.,
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion
(Jan. 1, 2023).
67 Kinsey Hasstedt, Unbiased Informed Consent on and Referral for All Pregnancy Options Are
Essential to Informed Consent in Reproductive Health Care, GUTTMACHER INST. (Jan. 10, 2018),
https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2018/01/unbiased-information-and-referral-all-pregnancy-
options-are-essential-informed-consent.
68 See id.
69 Richardson, supra note 64; see also Rutgers University, supra note 60.
70 Aneri Pattani, Abortion Booklet Revisions Called Even More Inaccurate, TEX. TRIB. (July 27, 2016)
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/27/state-proposes-changes-abortion-information-
For example, Texas’ medical booklet provided to patients seeking an

abortion contains inaccurate information relating to the likelihood of
breast cancer and infertility.71 The medical booklet was mandated by
Texas lawmakers in 2003 as part of an attempt to facilitate informed
consent from women seeking abortions from medical providers.72
However, numerous factual inaccuracies have been noted by medical
professionals and gynecological organizations.73 Unfortunately, the
advice from the medical community urging updates to the information
has fallen on deaf ears.74 The specific steps required for informed
consent are at the heart of the Satanic Temple’s lawsuits opposing
restrictive abortion laws.
FOUNDING AND EARLY EFFORTS OF THE SATANIC TEMPLE

The Satanic Temple was created in 2013.75 The two founding
members are known to use pseudonyms, with the leader of the Temple
boasting a double-layer pseudonym for protection.76 The Satanic
Temple’s use of Satan as a figurehead rests on the original definition
of the Hebrew word “Satan,” meaning “an adversary, one who
resists.”77 Although the Satanic Temple initially gained media
attention through social protests and public pranks that primarily
focused on bringing attention to the issue of separation of church and
bookle/.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 See id.
74 See id. Research from Rutgers University found that over 30 percent of the information
provided in the original Texas informed consent booklet was inaccurate, and not much has
changed in the recent draft. Id. Importantly, the risk of infertility and death from abortion is
strongly emphasized, while risks associated with following through with the pregnancy are
downplayed. Id.
75 Joseph P. Laycock, What the Satanic Temple is and Why It’s Opening a Debate About Religion, THE
CONVERSATION (March 5, 2020), https://theconversation.com/what-the-satanic-temple-is-
and-why-its-opening-a-debate-about-religion-131283.
76 Id.
77 Do Jews Believe in Satan?, MY JEWISH LEARNING,
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/satan-the-adversary/ (last visited Nov. 14, 2021);
Satan Definition and Meaning, BIBLE STUDY TOOLS,
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/satan/ (last visited Nov. 14, 2021).
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 13
state, they have since become known as a legitimate, albeit fringe,

religion fighting for religious freedom and separation of church and
state.78
One of the first notable acts from the Satanic Temple, which was
shown in the documentary “Hail Satan?” included hiring an actor,
dressing him in dark robes and a devilish headpiece, and hosting a
press conference in front of the Florida State Capitol.79 During this
press conference, the actor performed a rehearsed speech to honor
Governor Rick Scott and announce the Satanic Temple’s support of
Rick Scott’s push for prayer in public schools, arguing this would lead
to a boom in religious diversity.80 While this first appearance was done
humorously, the media attention assisted the Satanic Temple in
gaining a larger following and pursuing more fruitful and attention-
grabbing political protests and activities.81
Upon gaining members, the Satanic Temple began its efforts to
establish itself as a recognized religion. The IRS granted tax-exempt
status to the Satanic Temple in 2019, affording The Temple the same
legal protections as other recognized religions.82 One of the founders
of the Satanic Temple spoke on the legitimacy of the religion stating,
“I genuinely felt this is every bit a religion – this cultural identity, this
narrative that contextualizes your life, your works, your goals. And
you have these deeply held beliefs, that if they are violated, it
compromises your very self.”83 These deeply held beliefs are
documented in the Satanic Temple’s Seven Fundamental Tenets, to
which all members are instructed to attempt to closely adhere:
78 HAIL SATAN?, supra note 6; see also, Matthew Bell, The Satanic Temple Gets Religion, THE WORLD
(May 6, 2019), https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-05-06/satanic-temple-gets-religious.
79 HAIL SATAN?, supra note 6.
80 Id.; see also Tasha Robinson, Hail Satan? puts the Fun in Satanic Fundamentalism, THE VERGE
(Apr. 17, 2019), https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/26/18198728/hail-satan-film-review-
satanic-temple-lucien-greaves-jex-blackmore-sundance-2019.
81 See Robinson, supra note 80.
82 EJ Dickson, The IRS Officially Recognizes the Satanic Temple as a Church, ROLLING STONE (Apr.
24, 2019), https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/irs-satanic-temple-church-tax-
exempt-826931/.
83 Mark Oppenheimer, A Mischievous Thorn in the Side of Conservative Christianity, N.Y. TIMES
(July 10, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/a-mischievious-thorn-in-the-side-of-
conservative-christianity.html.
(1) One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward
all creates in accordance with reason; (2) The struggle for justice is an
ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and
institutions; (3) One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will
alone; (4) The freedoms of others should be respected, including the
freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon freedoms
of another is to forgo one’s own; (5) Beliefs should conform to one’s
best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never
to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs; (6) People are fallible. If one
makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any
harm that might have been caused; (7) Every tenet is a guiding
principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit
of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the
written or spoken word.84
While closely following these Tenets and instructing members on
ways to peacefully protest and take political action, the Satanic Temple
has continued their efforts in fighting against instances of religion in
politics. After learning of a Ten Commandments Statue outside of the
Arkansas State Capitol, the Satanic Temple worked to craft and place
their own 7.5-foot-tall statue of a Baphomet, a winged half-goat, half-
man creature, near the Ten Commandments.85 They have also
successfully removed prayer from a city council meeting in Arizona
after requesting to read their own incantation.86 Both of these efforts
were done lawfully and through the proper channels.87
84 About Us, supra note 5.

85 Vanessa Romo, Satanic Temple Protests Ten Commandments Monument with Goat-Headed Statue,
NPR (Aug. 17, 2018), https://www.npr.org/2018/08/17/639726472/satanic-temple-protests-
ten-commandments-monument-with-goat-headed-statue; Linda Satter, Arkansas Ten
Commandments Trial Put Off, NW. ARK. DEMOCRAT GAZETTE (July 5, 2020),
https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2020/jul/05/ten-commandments-trial-put-off/ (explaining
that the Satanic Temple now houses their statue of Baphomet at their headquarters in Salem,
Massachusetts but they have intervened in a case challenging the Ten Commandments statue
in Arkansas, seeking to officially place their statue on the Arkansas Capitol Grounds).
86 Peter Holley, How the Satanic Temple Forced Phoenix Lawmakers to ban Public Prayer, WASH. POST
(Feb. 5, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/02/05/how-the-
satanic-temple-forced-phoenix-lawmakers-to-ban-public-prayer/; See Satanic Temple, Inc. v.
City of Scottsdale, 423 F. Supp. 3d 766 (D. Ariz. 2019).
87 See Satanic Temple, 423 F. Supp. 3d at 766; see also TST’s Guide to Effective Protest, SATANIC
TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/the-satanic-temple-s-guidelines-for-effective-
protest (last visited Sept. 26, 2022) (detailing the way members of the Satanic Temple must
peacefully protest).
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 15
The Satanic Temple has multiple ongoing campaigns, all of which

are directed toward activism and their overall mission of religious
freedom.88 Their Protect Children Project focuses on preventing abuse
in public schools by allowing students who are members of the Satanic
Temple to assert a religious claim to exempt themselves from
mistreatment.89 Another school-centered project is After School Satan,
an after-school club that supports students’ intellectual and creative
projects.90 Among their many endeavors, one of their largest
campaigns is the Satanic Temple Religious Reproductive Rights, an
initiative focused on opposing laws that interfere with access to
abortions.91
In their fight for uninhibited abortion access, the Satanic Temple
is trying to circumvent restrictive abortion laws by citing their right to
an abortion ritual.92 The Satanic Temple has stated that their “Satanic
Abortion Ritual” is not intended to convince someone to have an
abortion but instead to “sanctif[y] the abortion process by instilling
confidence and protecting bodily rights when undergoing the safe and
scientific procedure.”93 The ritual has steps detailed on their website:
Immediately before receiving any anesthetic or sedation, look at
your reflection to be reminded of your personhood and responsibility
to yourself. Focus on your intent, take deep breaths, and make yourself
comfortable. When you are ready, say the Third Tenet aloud. The
surgery can now begin. During the operation, take another deep
breath and recite the Fifth Tenet. Immediately after the surgery, return
to your reflection and recite the personal affirmation. Feel the doubts
dissipating and your confidence growing as you have just undertaken
a decision that affirms your autonomy and free will. The religious
abortion is now complete.
88 Ongoing Campaigns, SATANIC TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/campaigns (last

visited Sept. 20, 2022).
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Id.
92 Laycock, supra note 75.
93 The Satanic Temple Religious Reproductive Rights, supra note 5.
The steps differ slightly depending on whether the patient is

undergoing a surgical or medical abortion, but the sanctity of the ritual
remains the same. 94
The Satanic Temple has also published a list of steps often
required by abortion practitioners that cannot be enforced on
members.95 These include mandatory waiting periods, withholding
medical information by practitioners, compulsory counseling prior to
the abortion, and medically unnecessary sonograms, among other
steps.96
The Satanic Temple is taking on the restrictive abortion laws in
Missouri and Texas by arguing that members of their church cannot
be forced to comply with procedures required in these states because
it conflicts with their religious beliefs.97
RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS IN MISSOURI AND TEXAS
Missouri’s Restrictions on Abortion

The first lawsuit opposing abortion restrictions filed by the Satanic
Temple was in Missouri. Missouri Title XII Chapter 188, signed into
law in 2019 by Gov. Mike Parson, imposes numerous restrictions on
those wanting to terminate their pregnancy by either a surgical
procedure or oral medication.98 Falling in line with the popular “fetal
heartbeat bills,” this law makes it illegal to perform abortions after
eight weeks of pregnancy, a time when cardiac activity is likely to be
found in the fetus. 99 A person may only terminate their pregnancy
94 Id.
95 Satanic Abortions Are Protected by Religious Liberty Laws, SATANIC TEMPLE,
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784(last visited Sept. 23,
2022).
96 Id.
97 Laycock, supra note 75.
98 Gabrielle Hays, Missouri Revisits 8-Week Abortion Ban as Laws Are Challenged Nationwide, PBS
(Sept. 24, 2021), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/missouri-revisits-8-week-abortion-
ban-as-laws-are-challenged-nationwide.
99 Id.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 17
under this law if carrying the fetus to term would put the person’s
health at risk.100
Additionally, the statute explicitly inserts and acknowledges a
religious intent stating, “[i]n recognition that Almighty God is the
author of life, that all men and women are ‘endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,’ … it is the
intention of the general assembly of the state of Missouri to defend the
right to life of all humans, born and unborn….”101
While the majority of Missouri’s abortion law is formulaic in its
approach to limiting abortion access, there are two notable, although
not entirely unique, elements to the restrictions. First, Missouri’s
restrictive abortion law does not provide an exception to the law for
instances of specific fetal diagnoses that could result in the fetus being
born with a disability.102
Selective abortion bans like this exist in many states, and
proponents of these bills often argue they are implemented to defend
“the disabled.”103 Pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood
have openly spoken out against the requirements imposed by
Missouri’s abortion law and state that the law simply limits a woman’s
right to free choice and “does nothing to address serious underlying
concerns about discrimination against people with disabilities.”104
Additionally, these selective abortion bans have been criticized
because prenatal diagnoses are statistically not a common factor when
people decide to terminate a pregnancy.105
100 Id.
101 MO. ANN. STAT. § 188.010 (West 2019).
102 Hays, supra note 98.
103 See id.
104 SB 96 Abortion Ban, ADVOCS. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ST. LOUIS REGION & SW. MO.,
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/planned-parenthood-advocates-
missouri/issues-legislation/past-session-archive/sb-96-fact-sheet (last visited Sept. 23, 2022)
(“Parents of children with Down syndrome have spoken out in various states against efforts
to ban abortions based Down syndrome. These parents have pointed out that the bills are not
about helping families and children affected by disabilities but are instead using those
children as a wedge issue in their efforts to ban abortion altogether.”).
105 S.E. Smith, Disabled People Are Tired of Being a Talking Point in the Abortion Debate, VOX (May
29, 2019, 4:10 PM), https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/5/29/18644320/abortion-ban-2019-
selective-abortion-ban-disability.
The second element of the Missouri law rests in a section titled

“Right to Life of the Unborn Child Act.”106 This section provides that
in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, all
abortions, except for those performed because of medical emergencies,
would be illegal.107 This trigger ban would make any person who
“knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child …
shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or
revocation of his or her professional license….” 108 There are currently
12 states with trigger bans baked into their abortion law.109
Texas’ Heartbeat Bill

The Satanic Temple has also filed a lawsuit in Texas in opposition
of the state’s abortion regulations. Texas has recently become the
center of heated discussion surrounding abortion due to the enactment
of Senate Bill 8 (SB8), known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, which has
become known as one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the
United States.110
The Texas Law imposes a ban on abortions after a “fetal heartbeat”
can be detected in the embryo, which the drafters claim occurs around
the sixth week of pregnancy.111 “Fetal heartbeat” is defined in the bill
as “cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction
of the fetal heart within the gestational sac.”112 However, “fetal
heartbeat” is a misleading term here, as the alleged cardiac activity
picked up by ultrasound machines is actually electrical activity
produced by groups of cells and not necessarily produced by any
functional cardiovascular system or functional heart.113 In addition to
106 MO. ANN. STAT. § 188.017 (West 2019).

107 Id.
108 Id.
109 See Elizabeth Nash & Lauren Cross, 26 States Are Certain or Likely to Ban Abortion Within Roe:
Here’s Which Ones and Why, GUTTMACHER INST.,
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/10/26-states-are-certain-or-likely-ban-abortion-
without-roe-heres-which-ones-and-why (Apr. 19, 2022).
110 Roni Caryn Rabin, Answers to Questions About the Texas Abortion Law, N.Y. TIMES,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/health/texas-abortion-law-facts.html (Nov. 1, 2021).
111 Id.
112 S.B. 8, 87th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021).
113 Selena Simmons-Duffin & Carrie Feibel, The Texas Abortion Ban Hinges on ‘Fetal Heartbeat.’
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 19
this “fetal heartbeat” cut off, like the law in Missouri, Texas has a
trigger ban on abortions that would go into effect upon the Supreme
Court overturning Roe.114
Texas has also managed to distinguish its restrictive abortion laws
from other similar laws in other states. Unlike other state laws
restricting abortion access, the Texas law was written in such a way
that makes challenging it particularly difficult by implementing a
unique way to enforce the regulations imposed.115 While most abortion
laws are enforced by state officials, in Texas, officials are prohibited
from enforcing them, and it is instead up to ordinary, private citizens
to sue clinics and individuals who violate the law.116 If a private citizen
wins a lawsuit against someone suspected of aiding or abetting an
abortion, they earn $10,000 plus legal costs.117
Upon enactment of the law, Evangelical organizations mobilized
to create whistleblower websites to collect anonymous tips on abortion
providers and people obtaining abortions illegally. However, these
websites were swiftly taken down by the website hosting services.118
The Texas law has been heavily criticized for overturning the legal
system and making it too difficult to challenge. 119 Additionally, people
fear such vigilante enforcement could result in a witch-hunt for
women seeking abortions or related consultations from doctors in the
state.120 After the enactment of the law, abortions in Texas came to a
Doctors Call That Misleading, NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-

shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-
on-abortion (May 3, 2022, 4:55 PM).
114 Shannon Najmabadi, Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Bill that Would Outlaw Abortions if Roe v. Wade is
Overturned, THE TEX. TRIB. (June 16, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-
abortion-law-roe-wade/.
115 Rabin, supra note 110.
116 Sabrina Tavernise, Citizens, Not the State, Will Enforce New Abortion Law in Texas, N.Y. TIMES,,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulations-texas.html (Nov. 1, 2021).
117 Charlotte Kilpatrick, The Satanic Temple is Fighting for Abortion Rights in Texas, THE NEW
STATESMAN (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-
america/us/2022/01/why-satan-may-be-the-best-option-for-abortion-seekers-in-texas.
118 Meryl Kornfield, A Website for ‘Whistleblowers’ to Expose Texas Abortion Providers was Taken
Down – Again, WASH. POST (Sept. 6, 2021),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/09/06/texas-abortion-ban-website/.
119 Tavernise, supra note 116.
120 See Kilpatrick, supra note 117; see also Kari White et al., Out-of-State Travel for Abortion Following
Implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8, UNIV. TEX. AUSTIN (Mar. 2022),
virtual halt, with many pro-choice activists noting the impact to be

catastrophic.121
Both individuals and organizations have spoken out against the
abortion restrictions in Texas.122 Specifically, because people’ often
don’t realize they are pregnant until after the six-week mark imposed
by the Texas law, it is nearly impossible to confirm a pregnancy in time
to obtain an abortion.123 Survivors of rape and incest, and the
organizations that support them, are particularly appalled by the
restrictions.124 There are no exceptions for people who become
pregnant through incidents of rape or incest.125 These survivors often
develop trauma and mental health conditions not only from the abuse
but also from having to carry a fetus resulting from the abuse to full
term and give birth.126 The chief public strategies officer for the Safe
Alliance, a Texas organization that assists survivors of child abuse,
sexual assault, and domestic violence stated, “[forcing survivors to
carry an unwanted pregnancy to term] is further taking control and
power away from the survivor right at the moment when they need
that power and control over their lives to begin healing.”127
The Supreme Court considered whether to block the controversial
Texas law.128 Oral arguments were heard from abortion providers and
the federal government, who oppose the implementation of the
https://sites.utexas.edu/txpep/files/2022/03/TxPEP-out-of-state-SB8.pdf (explaining that

upon passage of the Texas abortion law, individuals across the state began seeking alternative
means of obtaining an abortion with many crossing state lines to Oklahoma where the
restrictions on abortion were more lax); Oklahoma Governor Signs the Nation’s Strictest Abortion
Ban, NPR (May 26, 2022, 5:58 AM), https://www.npr.org/2022/05/26/1101428347/oklahoma-
governor-signs-the-nations-strictest-abortion-ban ( detailing Oklahoma’s overhaul of their
abortion laws that now place new restrictions on who can perform an abortion).
121 Nina Totenberg, Novel Texas Abortion Case is Back at the Supreme Court, NPR,
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050378379/novel-texas-abortion-case-back-at-supreme-
court (Nov. 1, 2021).
122 Ashley Lopez, How the Texas Ban on Most Abortions is Harming Survivors of Rape and Incest,
NPR (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2021/11/15/1054710917/texas-abortion-law-harm-sexual-assault-survivors.
123 Rabin, supra note 110.
124 See Lopez, supra note 122.
125 Id.
126 See Id.
127 Id.
128 Totenberg, supra note 121.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 21
enforcement method.129 The Supreme Court has since twice refused to

block the Texas law.130
THE SATANIC TEMPLE’S ACCESS TO ABORTION LAWSUITS
The Satanic Temple v. Missouri

Not long after Missouri and Texas passed their restrictive abortion
laws, the Satanic Temple filed lawsuits in both states alleging these
restrictive abortion laws infringed on their religious beliefs.131
In Missouri, a member of the Satanic Temple sought to obtain an
abortion after the passage of the Missouri abortion law.132 The Satanic
Temple had created a medical exemption letter to be presented to
abortion providers in the hopes that it would allow members to forego
any steps purporting to do with informed consent before obtaining an
abortion.133 The fillable form created by the Satanic Temple, which is
available to the general public, stated the following:
As an adherent to the principles of The Satanic Temple, my
sincerely-held religious beliefs include: My body is inviolable and
subject to my will alone. I may make decisions regarding my health
based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the
religious or political beliefs of others fail to account for the science. My
inviolable right to bodily autonomy includes the right to make
129 See id.

130 Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Ban, Greenlights Bounty-Hunting Scheme, ACLU
(Dec. 10, 2021), https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-refuses-block-texas-
abortion-ban-greenlights-bounty-hunting-scheme (“In a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that the
most significant part of a case filed by a coalition of abortion providers and others impacted
by the ban, led by Whole Woman’s Health, must be dismissed, ruling that the health care
providers could not bring suit against the classes of state judges and clerks or the state
attorney general. The court also ruled that a narrow portion of the case may proceed against
the Texas Medical Board and other licensing authorities, but this would not prevent bounty-
hunter lawsuits from being filed.”).
131 The Satanic Temple v. Texas, supra note 10; See TST Appeals Missouri Abortion Case to the U.S.
Supreme Court, THE SATANIC TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/mo (last visited Jan.
24, 2022).
132 TST Appeals Missouri Abortion Case to the U.S. Supreme Court, supra note 131.
133 Mary Emily O’Hara, The Satanic Temple Wants to Use Hobby Lobby Against ‘Informed Consent’
Abortion Laws, VICE (July 28, 2014), https://www.vice.com/en/article/438pv3/the-satanic-
temple-wants-to-use-hobby-lobby-against-informed-consent-abortion-laws.
decisions about fetal or embryonic tissue I carry, provided that the

tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human
being. I, alone, decide whether to remain pregnant and, in my sole
discretion, may disregard the current or future condition of any fetal
or embryonic tissue I carry.134
The named plaintiff in the Satanic Temple’s Missouri lawsuit used
the letter but was denied any waiver of the procedural steps to obtain
an abortion.135 The steps included a mandatory 72-hour waiting period
before receiving the abortion, acknowledging receipt of a mandatory
booklet that describes the anatomical characteristics of the embryo,
and accepting or declining an opportunity for an ultrasound to view
the embryo.136 All the steps are a part of Missouri’s attempt at informed
consent, and abortion providers are required by law to perform them
with a patient seeking an abortion procedure.137
In their suit, the Satanic Temple claimed the member was
mandated to “receive literature which asserts that ‘the life of each
human being begins at conception,’ and that ‘[a]bortion will terminate
the life of a separate, unique, living human being.’”138 The Satanic
Temple argued that these requirements “contravene [the member’s]
religious beliefs and were not medically necessary.”139 The Missouri
district court dismissed the Satanic Temple’s claim, and the Eighth
Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s ruling.140 Following the
134 Demand for Religious Exemption to Abortion Restrictions, THE SATANIC TEMPLE,
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0428/0465/files/Religious_Abortion_Exemption_Letter.pdf?
v=1621515132 (last visited Jan. 24, 2022).
135 See Doe v. Nixon, No. 15AC-CC00205, 2017 WL 2362217, at *1 (Mo. Cir. May 01, 2017).
136 Id.
137 See id. at *2.
138 TST Appeals Missouri Abortion Case to the U.S. Supreme Court, supra note 131 (“The Satanic
Temple is appealing because the legal system has explicitly displayed that it is fundamentally
corrupt. Rulings have not been made in accordance with the law but based on the personal
biases of the justices. Those who oppose our organization and what we stand for might revel
in our defeats in court, but they should not celebrate the decimation of law. One day the
Fundamentalists who rejoice in our inability to have access to fair and just courts will no
longer be in positions of power and the precedents being set now will allow them to be
unfairly discriminated against as well.”).
139 Id.
140 Id.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 23
Eighth Circuit’s refusal, the Satanic Temple appealed to The U.S.

Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.141
The Satanic Temple v. Texas

In Texas, the Satanic Temple has filed similar claims to those in
their Missouri lawsuit, alleging the “medically unnecessary abortion
regulations, including a sonogram, a forced decision to reject the
‘opportunity’ of seeing the sonogram results, the forced listening to a
narrative of the sonogram results, and a mandatory waiting period
between the sonogram and the abortion” all infringe on the Satanic
Temple’s religious beliefs.142
Prior to filing the lawsuit, an attorney for the Satanic Temple sent
a letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission seeking
exemption from the Texas abortion law for Ann Doe, who would later
become the named plaintiff in their lawsuit. In the letter, the attorney
stated:
The abortion ritual (1) requires an abortion; and (2) affirms [Ms.
Doe’s] religious subscription to [The Satanic Temple’s] Third and Fifth
Tenets. But before Ms. Doe can get her abortion – and therefore
participate in the abortion ritual – the government has required that
she get a sonogram … [These] requirements substantially interfere
with Ms. Doe’s religious beliefs and practices for two reasons. First, the
requirements are a precondition to Ms. Doe’s ability to participate in a
religious ceremony. It is a substantial interference per se for the state
to place a regulatory hurdle – one that costs money – in front of a
religious exercise. The state might as well tax and regulate [Catholic]
Mass.143
141 Id. (noting that before the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their case, the Satanic Temple
stated “The refusal of the Supreme Court to hear our complaint would be a dark day for
America and a huge blow to jurisprudence. The U.S. government was founded on the
principles of assuring that marginalized and unpopular groups would receive the same rights
and liberties as those in the majority. The TST rulings in Missouri, and elsewhere, so far have
revealed precisely the opposite. The Supreme Court might not rule in our favor, but they have
an obligation to right a wrong and at least hear our case and rule on its merits. For these
reasons, we have no choice but to appeal and hope the Supreme Court rectifies this
injustice.”).
142 The Satanic Temple v. Texas, supra note 10.
143 Id.
In their complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas, the

Satanic Temple once again alleged that one of its members was denied
unimpeded access to an abortion, which infringed on her deeply held
religious beliefs.144
However, the Satanic Temple included one key difference in their
complaint filed in Texas, which was not mentioned in their Missouri
lawsuit.145 The Satanic Temple has alleged that the restrictive nature of
the abortion laws in Texas infringes on members’ ability to perform an
abortion ritual, a religious practice created by the Satanic Temple.146
The complaint discusses the religious nature of the abortion ritual
performed by members of the Satanic Temple, stating that the ritual
allows members to “cast off guilt, shame and mental discomfort that
the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to
abort the pregnancy” and “confirms the member’s choice and wards
off effects of unjust persecution.”147
In both lawsuits, the Satanic Temple has pointedly emulated the
tactics used by the religious right, specifically drawing inspiration
from the 2014 Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by
mirroring such religious liberty claims.148
144 Id.
145 Joseph P. Laycock, How the Satanic Temple is Using ‘Abortion Rituals’ to Claim Religious Liberty
Against the Texas’ ‘Heartbeat Bill’, THE CONVERSATION (Sept. 22, 2021, 8:58 AM),
https://theconversation.com/how-the-satanic-temple-is-using-abortion-rituals-to-claim-
religious-liberty-against-the-texas-heartbeat-bill-167755 (last visited Nov. 3, 2022).
146 Id.
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2021).
148 See Kara Loewentheil, The Satanic Temple, Scott Walker, and Contraception: A Partial Account of
Hobby Lobby’s Implications for State Law, 9 HARV. L. & POL’Y REV. 89, 90 (2015); Burwell v.
Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 25
FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST:

CHALLENGING ABORTION RESTRICTIONS THROUGH A NEW
LENS
Abortion Access Under the Fourteenth Amendment

Although the Satanic Temple is pursuing a freedom of religion
claim under the First Amendment and state Religious Freedom
Restoration Acts,149 the history of abortion litigation has centered
around a different right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.150
The 20th-century fight for an individual’s reproductive freedom
began with the less inflammatory, yet equally as important, topic of
contraceptives. In Griswold v. Connecticut, decided in 1965, The U.S.
Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that would hold
criminally liable “[a]ny person who uses any drug, medicinal article or
instrument for the purpose of preventing conception….”151 In their
holding, The Supreme Court emphasized one’s constitutional right to
privacy afforded by “several fundamental constitutional guarantees”
when making decisions about family planning and childrearing.152
Five years after Griswold was decided, litigation of the landmark
decision Roe v. Wade began.153 Texas’ abortion laws at the time
criminalized abortion in nearly all instances of pregnancy, with an
exception for times in which a mother’s life would be saved by an
abortion procedure.154 In their opinion, The Supreme Court
characterized a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate their
pregnancy as “fundamental.”155 This was premised upon the right to
privacy guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
149 The Satanic Temple v. Texas, supra note 10; Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief, Doe v. Hellerstedt, No. 4:21-CV-00387 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2021).
150 See Carrie N. Baker, The History of Abortion Law in the United States, OUR BODIES OURSELVES,
https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book-excerpts/health-article/u-s-abortion-history/
(Aug. 2022).
151 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 480 (1965).
152 Id. at 485.
153 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 120 (1973).
154 Id. at 117-18.
155 Id. at 152-53.
Amendment.156 The Court noted that a state may regulate the practice
of abortions; however, any compelling state interest in the matter does
not occur until the fetus is “viable.”157 Additionally, any state
regulation imposed on abortions must not only meet a compelling
state interest but also must be “narrowly drawn.”158 States could not
regulate abortion procedures until the conclusion of the first trimester
of pregnancy, and any decisions regarding the termination of a
pregnancy before the first trimester ended were to be left to medical
practitioners and people seeking abortions.159
Immediately following Roe, opponents of abortion began urging
federal and state lawmakers to challenge the decision by passing
restrictive abortion laws.160 This resulted in continuous litigation and
opportunities for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, which it
repeatedly declined to do.161
A reworking of the viability standard first occurred in Planned
Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.162 The Pennsylvania
statute in question put numerous restrictions on abortion, including a
mandatory waiting period and spousal notification before undergoing
an abortion procedure.163 The Supreme Court reevaluated the
trimester framework laid out in Roe, opting to create a new standard
to govern abortion regulations while reaffirming a women’s
fundamental right to privacy.164 The new standard stated, “[o]nly
where state regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman’s ability
to make this decision [to abort] does the power of the state reach into
the heart of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.”165
156 Id.
157 Id. at 160, 162-63.
158 Id. at 155.
159 Id. at 164.
160 Roe v. Wade and Its Impact, USHISTORY.ORG, https://www.ushistory.org/us/57d.asp (last
visited Oct. 10, 2022); David Masci, A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court,
PEW RSCH. CTR. (Jan. 16, 2013), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/01/16/a-history-
of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/#post.
161 See id.
162 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 873 (1992).
163 Id. at 885, 887.
164 Id. at 873-74.
165 Id.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 27
This decision marked a shift towards slowly allowing states to be

more and more restrictive regarding their abortion regulation.166 Many
restrictive abortion laws have been upheld using the undue burden
standard articulated in Casey.167
Despite allowing more states to place more restrictions on
abortions, Casey’s undue burden test has been employed successfully
to limit certain restrictions on abortion.168 For example, Texas
attempted to place unnecessary requirements on physicians and
facilities involved in abortion procedures, which would have
effectively reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state.169 In
their opinion, the Supreme Court noted that these restrictions on
providers do not confer “medical benefits sufficient to justify the
burdens upon access that [they] impose[].”170 Balancing the supposed
benefits from the restrictions imposed to the burdens it places on
people seeking abortions, the court found the burdens to be “undue,”
as articulated in Casey.171
As illustrated by the long history of abortion-related litigation,
claims against state regulation have focused on one’s privacy rights
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, an argument that denying unfettered access to abortions
infringes upon one’s freedom of religion has not been explored. This
novel approach being undertaken by the Satanic Temple has its roots
in the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.172
166 See Roe v. Wade and Its Impact, supra note 160.
167 See Deepa Shivaram, Roe Established Abortion Rights. 20 Years Later, Casey Paved the Way for
Restrictions, NPR (May 6, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096885897/roe-established-
abortion-rights-20-years-later-casey-paved-the-way-for-restricti.
168 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016).
169 Id at 2300-01.
170 Id at 2300.
171 Id.
172 See Loewentheil, supra note 148, at 90; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682
(2014).
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and The Religious Freedom

Restoration Act
Hobby Lobby is a well-known Christian company that sells arts
and crafts supplies in over 500 stores across the United States and
employs over 13,000 people.173 In their statement of purpose, Hobby
Lobby has committed to “[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by
operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical
principles.”174
In March of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(“ACA”) was signed into law.175 While the ACA predominately
focused on decreasing the number of uninsured U.S. citizens, there
were also reforms that required coverage of certain medical services.176
This included requiring employer-sponsored health care plans to
cover certain contraceptives like birth control and Plan B, an oral pill
taken after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy.177
Following the passage of the ACA, Hobby Lobby filed suit against
the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.178
Hobby Lobby claimed that they held a “belie[f] that human beings
deserve protection from the moment of conception, and that providing
insurance coverage for items that risk killing an embryo makes them
complicit in abortion.”179 Hobby Lobby argued that the ACA’s
requirement for-profit institutions to provide employment-based
health care plans that cover contraception violated their First
173 Christen E. Hammock, Mary Doe Ex Rel. Satan?: Parody, Religious Liberty & Reproductive Rights,
40.1 COLUM. J. GENDER & L. 46, 65 (2020).
174 Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 703.
175 Reem Gerais, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), EMBRYO (Feb. 26, 2017),
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/burwell-v-hobby-lobby-2014.
176 Id.
177 Id.
178 Gerais, supra note 175.
179 Brief for Respondents at 9, Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. 682 (No. 13-354) (arguing that emergency
contraceptive pills, like Plan B, and intrauterine devices have the potential to prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting in the embryo, the result is an induced abortion because the
already fertilized eggs are “terminated.”); Gerais, supra note 175.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 29
Amendment right to freedom of religion and the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).180
RFRA was adopted by Congress to provide greater protection
under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.181 Under RFRA, the
government is held to a heightened standard of review for actions that
may significantly burden one’s free exercise of religion.182 Upon
showing that a significant burden to one’s free exercise of religion has
been created, the government must then show that it has a compelling
interest in creating the burden and that the means used were the least
restrictive way to achieve its purpose.183
Upon its enactment, RFRA created an onslaught of litigation that
culminated in City of Boerne v. Flores, where it was eventually deemed
unconstitutional in its application to states.184 As a result, many states
passed their own versions of RFRA that apply to state and local laws.185
In Hobby Lobby, the court held that the contraception mandate
under the ACA creates a substantial burden on for-profit religious
organizations, and the means employed by the Department of Health
and Human Services were not the least restrictive means possible.186
180 Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 682.

181 David Schultz, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (1993), THE FIRST AMEND.
ENCYCLOPEDIA, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1092/religious-freedom-
restoration-act-of-1993 (Sept. 2017).
182 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: A Primer, CONG. RSCH. SERV. (Apr. 3, 2020),
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11490.
183 Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 690-91.
184 City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997); see also The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: A
Primer, supra note 182.
185 The Religious Freedom Restoration Act: A Primer, supra note 182 (“The scope of RFRA changed
as a result of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), where the Court held that RFRA’s
application to states and local governments was beyond Congress’s power under Section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The Section 5 power, according to the Court, is ‘remedial,’
allowing Congress to act only in instances where there is evidence of a pattern of conduct that
violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court determined that because Congress had not
established a widespread pattern of religious discrimination, RFRA could not be justified as
a remedial measure designed to prevent unconstitutional conduct. Instead, the Court viewed
RFRA as an attempt to substantively change the meaning of the free exercise clause, which
was outside of Congress’s power over the states.”).
186 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 683 (2014) (holding that “person,” as it is
used in RFRA, includes corporations, companies, and associations as well as individuals, and
RFRA was designed to provide “very broad protection for religious liberty.”).
After Hobby Lobby was decided, members of the medical

profession and medical organizations voiced their opposition against
the Supreme Court’s ruling.187 Fears surrounding how corporations
may abuse this religious exemption to avoid paying for necessary
health coverage were one of the main concerns.188
Despite the negative reaction from many in the medical
community, the Hobby Lobby decision found support in some of the
Christian community.189 The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops went
as far as to file an amicus curiae brief, vocalizing their support for
Hobby Lobby and similarly religiously motivated business owners.190
The implication of this support is litigation by the Satanic Temple.
Copycat Hobby Lobby: Religious Freedom and Abortion Access

After Hobby Lobby was decided, the Satanic Temple saw an
opportunity to use the court’s ruling to their advantage.191 Lucien
Greaves, one of the founding members of the Satanic Temple, stated:
[T]he supreme court has decided that religious beliefs are so
sancrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact. This was made
clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives
were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect
the court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our beliefs are
based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the
illegitimacy of state--mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to
exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs from having to receive
them.192
187 See Gerais, supra note 175.

188 See Emma Green, Satanists Troll Hobby Lobby, THE ATLANTIC (July 29, 2014),
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/satanists-troll-the-hobby-lobby-
decision/375268/; Gerais, supra note 175; Adam Sonfield, Religious Exemptions in Insurance
Coverage and the Patient-Clinician Relationship, 16 AM. MED. ASS’N. J. ETHICS 864, 865 (2014).
189 See Gerais, supra note 175.
190 U.S. Bishops File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties in
Supreme Court Cases Challenging HHS Mandate, U.S. CONF. CATH. BISHOPS (Jan. 28, 1014),
https://www.usccb.org/news/2014/us-bishops-file-amicus-curiae-brief-supporting-hobby-
lobby-and-conestoga-wood-specialties.
191 David Lee, Satanists Seek Hobby Lobby Exemption, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERV. (July 29, 2014),
https://www.courthousenews.com/satanists-seek-hobby-lobby-exemption/.
192 Id.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 31
The Satanic Temple went on to release a press statement

emphasizing the group’s deeply held beliefs in a “scientific
understanding of the world,” which informed their strong pro-choice
views and insistence that women have access to abortion.193 The
Satanic Temple then created a form for members to fill out to seek
exemption from listening to the scripted “informed consent” required
by abortion providers.194 This form proved ineffective, and the Satanic
Temple looked to other means of protecting their right to unrestricted
abortion access.195
Although at first expressing deep disappointment and frustration
with the Hobby Lobby decision, Hobby Lobby is now serving as the
backbone of the lawsuits filed by the Satanic Temple as they seek
exemption for their members from restrictive abortion laws in Texas.196
Hobby Lobby focused on an organization seeking exemption
because of their deeply held Christian belief, and subsequent
successful cases concerning religious liberties are predominantly ones
involving Christianity; this raises the question of how a court may
respond to a minority, and somewhat controversial, religion such as
the Satanic Temple pursuing a religious liberty claim.197 The Satanic
Temple is seeking a similar religious exemption for their members, but
this exemption is based on their deeply held religious beliefs in science,
bodily autonomy, and, of course, their satanic principles.198
Additionally, Hobby Lobby brought an action under federal RFRA laws,
while the Satanic Temple has turned to state RFRA law.199
Although there lies a sharp contrast between the Satanic Temple’s
and Hobby Lobby’s religious views, desires, and types of exemptions
sought, the desired result and application of RFRA and First
Amendment protection is largely the same.
193 See Green, supra note 188.

194 See O’Hara, supra note 133.
195 See discussion supra Part IV(A).
196 David S. Cohen, How the Satanic Temple Could Bring Abortion Rights to the Supreme Court,
ROLLING STONE (Aug. 24, 2020), https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
features/satanic-temple-abortion-rights-supreme-court-1048833/.
197 See id.
198 Green, supra note 188.
199 Cohen, supra note 196.
Like Hobby Lobby, the Satanic Temple is arguing that restrictive

state abortion laws are creating a substantial burden on their members
and infringing on their First Amendment right to freedom of
religion.200 In their complaint, the Satanic Temple stated, “from the
perspective of a Satanist, abortion regulations place the State in the role
of tyrant king which claims divine authority to in an effort to make the
Satanist feel guilt, doubt, and shame on an issue of religious
significance. This is deeply offensive to those who subscribe to the
Third Tenet.”201
Primarily, the Satanic Temple takes issue with the informed
consent law, which requires patients seeking abortions to have a
sonogram, an opportunity to see the sonogram results, a forced
listening to a narrative of the sonogram results, and a mandatory
waiting period between the results of the sonogram and obtaining the
abortion.202 The causes of action filed by the Satanic Temple in Texas
articulate a multi-dimensional constitutional issue, including free
exercise and free speech under the First Amendment, equal protection
under the Fourteenth Amendment, and violation of state RFRA
laws.203
By claiming violation of state RFRA laws, the Satanic Temple may
face an uphill battle. In its challenge against the Missouri abortion law,
the federal appeals court held that the Missouri abortion law was
generally applicable and neutral; this mirrors the holding in
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith.204 In
Smith, members of the Native American Church were denied
unemployment compensation after they were fired from their
positions as drug rehabilitation counselors for partaking in peyote, a
hallucinogenic drug, as part of their religious ceremony.205 The denial
of benefits was based on dismissal from their position for misconduct
on the job.206
200 See id.

(S.D. Tex. Feb. 05, 2021).
202 Id.
203 Id.
204 Cohen, supra note 196; Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 874 (1990).
205 Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 874 (1990).
206 Id.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 33
In Smith, the Supreme Court stated that an individual’s religious

beliefs cannot provide an excuse for compliance with a neutral or
generally applicable law.207 The implication of Smith is that the
government’s burden is lessened so long as they can prove the law is
generally applicable to all religious practices and is neutrally
applied.208
The Satanic Temple has cited Smith in their complaint filed in
Texas, in which they appropriately reference the Texas Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, Texas’ own RFRA.209 The Satanic Temple is
pushing for a strict scrutiny standard, as used in Hobby Lobby, when
reviewing the Texas abortion law per the Texas RFRA laws.210 They
argue general applicability and neutrality is irrelevant under Texas
RFRA laws, and the Court must instead contend with whether the law
creates a “substantial interference” with the free exercise of religion
and if the regulation can survive strict scrutiny.211
In consideration of the Satanic Abortion ritual, it stands to reason
that the restrictions placed on abortions in Texas substantially interfere
with the Satanic Temple’s member’s religious practice by requiring
sonograms and receipt of ill-informed pamphlets as well as possible
denial of abortion access if past the sixth week of pregnancy.
In arguing interference with their Satanic Abortion Ritual, the
Satanic Temple has articulated that the court should not question the
legitimacy of the ritual as a religious practice.212 The Supreme Court
has stated when analyzing a religious liberty claim, courts “must not
presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or
the plausibility of a religious claim.”213 Therefore, in determining if the
Texas laws violate the Satanic Abortion Ritual, the truth or centrality
207 Id. at 881.

208 Id. at 872
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 05, 2021).
210 Id.
211 Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 16-17, Doe, No. 4:21-CV-00387 (Filed
Feb. 05, 2021).
212 Id.
213 Emp. Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887 (1990).
of the Satanic Temple’s practices, including the abortion ritual, cannot

be litigated.214
The arguments raised by the Satanic Temple in their challenge of
the Texas abortion laws present questions of how broadly the holding
in Hobby Lobby can be read. Hobby Lobby does not create a definite rule
on how to deal with religious exemptions, and some have argued that
allowing such an interpretation would allow any person to claim any
religious exemption they desire.215 However, the Satanic Temple’s
lawsuit likely looks to the original intent of RFRA laws – to protect the
religious freedom of religious minorities.216 The Satanic Temple is a
textbook minority religion, and their desire for protection of their
religious abortion ritual falls squarely within the original intent of
RFRA.
The Satanic Temple has also claimed that the restrictive abortion
laws in Texas, including informed consent procedures such as
mandatory sonograms and listening to a narrative of the results,
infringe upon their member’s free exercise of religion under the First
Amendment by creating an undue burden.217 As the Satanic Abortion
Ritual requires reciting certain tenants and affirmations, which the
Satanic Temple argues is “religiously charged speech,” the informed
consent steps hinder participants from proceeding with the Abortion
Ritual in the manner it is intended or from participating in the
Abortion Ritual at all.218
The Satanic Temple’s claim arising under the First Amendment
highlights an important issue not often discussed during litigation of
restrictive abortion laws – abortion regulations and laws
predominately reflect the Evangelical Christian and Catholic narrative
and beliefs toward abortion. These laws reflect a religiously formulaic
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 05, 2021).
215 See Loewentheil, supra note 148, at 118.
216 In an Era of Religious Refusals, the Do No Harm Act is an Essential Safeguard, ACLU (Feb. 28,
2019), https://www.aclu.org/blog/religious-liberty/using-religion-discriminate/era-religious-
refusals-do-no-harm-act-essential.
217 Complaint Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief at 13, 15-16, Doe, No. 4:21-CV-00387
(S.D. Tex. Feb. 05, 2021).
218 Id. at 13.
HANNAH WIMBERLEY 35
approach to the restriction of abortion access and reproductive

healthcare.
As abortion laws become more and more restrictive, the influence
of the religious majority becomes more apparent. These restrictive
laws subsequently alienate many of the U.S. population that do not
subscribe to a similar belief, and the laws ultimately endorse a
Christian ideal. By highlighting a religious belief that is nearly the
antithesis of Christianity, the Satanic Temple raises the question of
how religion and abortion intersect in lawmaking.
In addition to the lawsuits filed in Texas and Missouri, the Satanic
Temple is actively pursuing other means of assisting its members with
access to abortion. The Satanic Temple has sent a letter to the Food and
Drug Administration, claiming their members should have access to
abortion medication without regulation because, under RFRA, Native
Americans are allowed access to drugs for their religious rituals.219
CONCLUSION
Christianity has had a strong, vice-like grip on abortion laws
throughout the U.S. for decades. Christian pro-life activists have
solidified their stance on abortion, believing the practice is akin to
murder. Activists continue advocating for the complete abolishment
of abortions, and as lawmakers fall in line with these beliefs, they have
slowly chipped away at abortion access.
The uninformed informed consent requirements and supposed
‘heartbeat’ bills place unnecessary boundaries between patients and
comprehensive reproductive health care. As these laws are enforced,
219 Jordan Williams, Satanic Temple to Challenge Texas Abortion Law Citing Religious Freedoms, THE
HILL (Sept. 6, 2021), https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/570971-satanic-
temple-to-challenge-texas-abortion-law-citing-religious; see also The Satanic Temple Demands
FDA Grant Unrestricted Access to Abortion Drugs, PRNEWSWIRE (Sept. 1, 2021),
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-satanic-temple-demands-fda-grant-
unrestricted-access-to-abortion-drugs-301367361.html (explaining that in their letter,
attorneys for the Satanic Temple expressed The Satanic Temple’s “desire to ensure the health
and safety of its membership… the issue is with governmental control over whether [The
Satanic Temple’s] membership can obtain access to these drugs.” Lucien Greaves commented
on the letter, “[i]n the spirit of existing law, this is a monumental step for religious freedom
in the United States as a whole. Our members will be able to receive access to abortion care
with no unnecessary and unscientific governmental interference and be able to rightfully
place a deeply personal ritual in a context that comports with their religious beliefs.”).
lawmakers and pro-life activists get one step closer to overturning Roe
v. Wade and creating a country without abortion access. The effects of
restrictive abortion laws have already been felt by people seeking
access to abortions as patients cross state lines to terminate their
pregnancies safely and under the care of medical professionals.
In their Texas and Missouri lawsuits, the Satanic Temple has
shown light on the preference for Christian ideals in reproductive
healthcare regulations. The dismissal of their Missouri lawsuit and
refusal to be heard by the Supreme Court may be evidence of a
Christian preference for free exercise of religion claims.
Unfortunately, the viability of the Satanic Temple’s claims in
Texas rests on the likelihood of the court seeing past the figurehead of
the Satanic Temple and treating their religious liberty claim the same
as similar claims brought for the sake of Christian organizations. The
Satanic Temple’s lawsuit in Texas has legitimacy not only in their
religious practices but also in their arguments for religious freedom as
guaranteed by the Constitution and state RFRA. Should the Satanic
Temple lose their lawsuit against Texas, it would further highlight the
Christian hegemony plaguing the U.S.

Satan and The Law How The Satanic Temple Is Fighting Christian Hegemony in Reproductive Healthcare

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satan and The Law How The Satanic Temple Is Fighting Christian Hegemony in Reproductive Healthcare

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satan and The Law How The Satanic Temple Is Fighting Christian Hegemony in Reproductive Healthcare

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22 Hous. J. Health L.

SATAN AND THE LAW: HOW THE SATANIC

members of the Satanic Temple follow their own set of beliefs

As the debate over access to abortion and reproductive healthcare

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND ABORTION

Christian Views of Abortion Before the Twentieth Century

13 The Satanic Temple v. Texas, supra note 10.

over a 1,500 year time frame, pre-modern Christians had a varied

doctors sought to regulate the practice of abortion.27 Upon denouncing

Abortion and Politics in the Twentieth Century and Beyond

Church recognized these restrictions as leading to an increase in the

33 Veazey & Signer, supra note 18, at 286.

Carter had denied the pro-life’s push for a constitutional amendment

Expertly wielding their biblical interpretations and religious

Congress is predominantly made up of members who identify as

63 Faith on the Hill, PEW RSCH. CTR. (Jan. 4, 2021), https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/04/faith-

For example, Texas’ medical booklet provided to patients seeking an

FOUNDING AND EARLY EFFORTS OF THE SATANIC TEMPLE

state, they have since become known as a legitimate, albeit fringe,

84 About Us, supra note 5.

The Satanic Temple has multiple ongoing campaigns, all of which

88 Ongoing Campaigns, SATANIC TEMPLE, https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/campaigns (last

The steps differ slightly depending on whether the patient is

RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAWS IN MISSOURI AND TEXAS

Missouri’s Restrictions on Abortion

The second element of the Missouri law rests in a section titled

Texas’ Heartbeat Bill

106 MO. ANN. STAT. § 188.017 (West 2019).

Doctors Call That Misleading, NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-

virtual halt, with many pro-choice activists noting the impact to be

https://sites.utexas.edu/txpep/files/2022/03/TxPEP-out-of-state-SB8.pdf (explaining that

enforcement method.129 The Supreme Court has since twice refused to

THE SATANIC TEMPLE’S ACCESS TO ABORTION LAWSUITS

The Satanic Temple v. Missouri

129 See id.

decisions about fetal or embryonic tissue I carry, provided that the

Eighth Circuit’s refusal, the Satanic Temple appealed to The U.S.

The Satanic Temple v. Texas

In their complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas, the

FROM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST:

Abortion Access Under the Fourteenth Amendment

This decision marked a shift towards slowly allowing states to be

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and The Religious Freedom

Amendment right to freedom of religion and the Religious Freedom

180 Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 682.

After Hobby Lobby was decided, members of the medical

Copycat Hobby Lobby: Religious Freedom and Abortion Access

187 See Gerais, supra note 175.

The Satanic Temple went on to release a press statement

193 See Green, supra note 188.

Like Hobby Lobby, the Satanic Temple is arguing that restrictive

200 See id.

In Smith, the Supreme Court stated that an individual’s religious

207 Id. at 881.

of the Satanic Temple’s practices, including the abortion ritual, cannot

approach to the restriction of abortion access and reproductive

You might also like