Federal Appeals Court: Satanic Temple Can (Maybe) Challenge Idaho Abortion Ban
The group claimed Idaho’s abortion ban seized “the economic value of a woman’s uterus” and forced pregnant women into slavery.
A federal appeals court on Monday ordered a lower court to reconsider whether The Satanic Temple (TST) has standing to challenge Idaho’s abortion ban. TST argued the ban violated the rights of “Involuntarily Pregnant TST members” under the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
TST identifies as “a religious association . . . that supports abortion as an exercise of personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy.” The group established a telehealth abortion clinic in New Mexico after Idaho banned abortion with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, and incest.
TST launched several constitutional challenges to the ban:
TST alleges the Idaho abortion laws are unconstitutional as applied to Involuntarily Pregnant TST members, claiming that Idaho’s actions have: (1) created a taking of the economic value of a woman’s uterus by forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies without state compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment; (2) subjected women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment; and (3) given unconstitutional preferences to survivors of rape or incest, who are excepted from Idaho’s abortion prohibitions, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.4
Footnote four states that “TST initially brought a claim under Idaho’s Exercise of Religious Freedom Act but later consented to its dismissal; that claim is not before the panel.”
A lower court dismissed TST’s suit for failure to establish standing to sue. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court:
Article III standing requires demonstrating an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. TST, whose sole clinic is in New Mexico, has no patients in Idaho, no clinic in Idaho, no doctors who are licensed to treat Idaho patients, and has identified no Idaho citizen who seeks an abortion from the organization. (citation omitted)
The Ninth Circuit agreed that TST failed to establish either associational or organizational standing to sue. Associational standing exists when, among other requirements, an organization’s member have standing in their own right to sue, but the organization sues on their behalf. Organizational standing exists when an organization has standing to sue on its own behalf.
TST, the Ninth Circuit agreed, failed to establish associational standing because it failed to demonstrate that the ban had harmed any of its members.
TST argued it had organizational “standing as a prescriber of abortifacients” or because the ban impeded TST’s organizational mission.
The Ninth Circuit also agreed that TST failed to establish organizational standing under either theory. The court rejected the prescriber theory because TST’s prescribers could not prescribe abortifacients even in the limited cases allowed by Idaho law:
TST can hardly claim injury as a prescriber because, even absent the challenged laws, it cannot legally prescribe abortifacients in Idaho: Idaho law allows only licensed physicians to prescribe abortifacients, whereas the Clinic employs only nurse practitioners, not licensed Idaho doctors. TST does not challenge this law and has not demonstrated concrete plans to hire doctors in Idaho, alleging only that it could pay $300 to license its nurse practitioners in Idaho. (cleaned up)
The Ninth Circuit likewise rejected the organizational mission theory because the ban did not affect TST’s core mission, at least as it existed before the ban. Before opening its clinic, the Ninth Circuit noted, TST’s abortion advocacy did not include a medical practice. Instead, TST “focused on education and advocacy” related to abortion.
The Ninth Circuit, finding TST had not alleged any impediment to its abortion “education and advocacy,” rejected the organizational mission theory:
The challenged statutes only criminalize abortion itself, and TST is still not set up to provide abortion services in Idaho. Thus, TST cannot establish standing based on a diversion of resources and frustration of mission theory.
The Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed with the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning TST could not file a complaint amended to show it had standing. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to consider whether an amendment to TST’s complaint could establish standing.
Because the Ninth Circuit found no standing, the court did not assess the merits of TST’s constitutional claims.
The Ninth Circuit’s opinion:
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
abort alll you want
why hasnt the gop sued to stop their own hyde amendment bs
no tax money for abortions
no exceptions!
Noting that I myself am not a Christian, it is interesting that the suit by The Satanic Temple does rather starkly draw the lines as to who is on which side in the issue.
Subotai Bahadur
Are you part of another faith?
TST says that the abortion ban violated the rights of TST members who are involuntary pregnant. If a woman has sex voluntarily then pregnancy is a risk she voluntarily takes, and I would say the pregnancy is not involuntary. Beyond that, who speaks for the fetus who is going to be involuntarily terminated?
Right. Cue the Inigo Montoya meme. No, the other one.
Involuntary pregnancy implies rape. Rape victims are permitted by the law.
The key lies in the phrasing: In German, the term used is “ungewollte Schwangerschaft”—where “ungewollt” translates to “unwanted”, not “involuntary” (“unfreiwillig”). To be blunt, the word “involuntary” inherently carries the implication of rape, as it could suggest the entire act was non-consensual. And, as we’re well aware, modern third-wave feminists often retroactively reinterpret whether intercourse was truly consensual or not…
Has the woman identified the rapist and pressed charges?
If not, then it’s not “involuntary”.
There is no right to “bodily autonomy”. Examples: Men can be drafted / conscripted into military, some drug use is illegal, a doctor won’t amputate a healthy limb for someone suffering from body integrity identity disorder, assisted suicide is illegal, etc…..
Nice thought! But the left is working on all of those loopholes in their ability to do evil.
I disagree entirely. Although no government court will ever so rule, the draft is slavery. Drug use should not be illegal, as the government was never delegated the power to control what a person consumes. If a doctor won’t amputate a healthy limb, it’s because it is his choice not to offer that service — he may well agree to amputate a healthy breast or penis. And assisted suicide is illegal only by societal custom — cross the right border and it’s perfectly legal. In fact, “the law” will do it for you.
If you do not own your own body, who does? If not you, you are a slave.
The argument against abortion is that you are not destroying YOUR body, but someone else’s.
If you had your way, would it be illegal to administer Narcan to someone who willingly took an opiate overdose?
??
why would it be illegal to help someone?
if they sued you for helping them then fewer people would helps others
if they didnt sue and were publicly great full others would see that too and be willing to help
If he willingly took it, was an adult, and had not been adjudicated incompetent, I would not do it whether or not it was illegal. I would consider it already illegal in any event, under battery law, This is a tough principle to stand behind, but is basic to personal liberty.
I don’t disagree about the draft, but nevertheless it is legal and infringes on bodily autonomy.
I don’t disagree about drugs being illegal, but they are; i.e. infringe on bodily autonomy.
If a person suffering BIID found a doctor willing to amputate a healthy arm, he will likely be prosecuted, as should doctors willing to remove a healthy breast of penis of a person suffering from body disphoria.
Should assisted suicide be legal? Maybe (regular suicide was illegal until very recently in one US state). But it’s not; hence an infringement on bodily autonomy.
I do agree that the argument against abortion is killing an innocent life; just trying to point out the feminists argument about bodily autonomy is bunk.
“(regular suicide was illegal until very recently in one US state)”
So, how many convictions did they rack up?
Let’s try the requirement to requirement to register with selective service which excludes women but is mandatory for men 18-26. Seems to directly counter to the 14A. One could claim that women are less suited to service in infantry but there’s all sorts of other roles in the military so that argument doesn’t wash. Plenty of women are already serving in those roles voluntarily.
The resistance to a requirement for women to register is not about combat but about maintaining antiquated notions of ‘proper roles’ for women in society. This is reflected in the hyperventilating crystal of ‘don’t send our Daughters to war’….but for the Sons…meh he can go. We don’t have equality under our judicial system either. Sentencing data shows a large disparity in length of sentences handed down for men v women for the same category of crime as well as whether incarceration is ordered at all. Then there’s the ridiculous presumptions in Family Court which result in Fathers losing custody 85%+ to Mothers …despite mountains of data showing that every negative statistic for child life outcome is far worse in single mother homes than single Father homes; higher likelihood of criminal acts, prison stint, violence, mental health problems.
We either believe in and support legal equality or we don’t. If women are excluded from the requirement to merely register for selective service then that’s discrimination on the basis of sex which is illegal.
I don’t disagree about the draft, but nevertheless it is legal and infringes on bodily autonomy.
If you and a partner voluntarily stick a person inside you in a state where that person cannot fend for themselves for at least 9 months, you do not get to cite bodily autonomy as a reason for murdering them.
YOU put them there.
Therefore you are responsible to feed and house them until such time as they can do it on their own.
You can only have bodily autonomy over YOUR body. And the person YOU stuck inside you has their own body which is not yours. So YOU don’t get to hurt it.
You’re incorrectly assuming that we “own” ourselves. We are God’s creatures by creation. Additionally, followers of Jesus belong to him, being purchased by his death on our behalf.
It’s bootless to offer faith-based arguments to a person who doesn’t share your faith.
gibbie,
To buttress Henry’s observation, the USA is a secular Nation without an official religion. In fact the 1A protects everyone’s right to practice or refrain from practicing any or all religions. Appeals to the Bible, WWJD won’t cut it outside those who share your religion.
Nonsense to both you and Henry (with both of whom I usually agree).
The founding of our country was based on a Judeo Christian understanding of God and man – especially human nature. The USA was never a secular nation, and the culture it thrives in is completely Judeo Christian – whether its citizens recognize this or not.
Since all value judgements are inherently religious, I will cheerfully continue to share mine. You and Henry are free to ignore them. May God bless you both.
Doctors won’t currently remove health limbs because that desire is still rightly seen as crazy. They will gladly mutilate health primary and secondary sexual organs because wanting to do that isn’t crazy.
And what is “crazy” varies from year to year on how crazy politics is in that year. Precisely. The barometer of what is wrong varies depending on what everybody else thinks this week. Exactly like the corporate DEI fad and vaccine internment. This is what life looks like when you live it without examined principles of your own.
Definitely. Covid era Cray Cray truly revealed who was capable of independent thought/reasoning then holding firm on their own conclusions v those incapable of independent thought and action who either reflexively joined the ‘herd’ of lemmings or lacked the will to refuse the herd and just went along with the totalitarianism despite how utterly Cray Cray and unconstitutional it was.
“The group claimed Idaho’s abortion ban seized “the economic value of a woman’s uterus” and forced pregnant women into slavery.”
If a woman chooses to have sex—knowing pregnancy is the usual outcome—then she’s responsible for the consequences. The ‘slavery’ argument ignores personal accountability. And for those shouting ‘rape’? Only 0.002% of all abortions are from actual rape cases. Facts over feelings…
And, “economic value of a woman’s uterus” makes it sound like she’s getting paid to bear children. And there’s a whole tangle there.
The other option is that they looked it up in a Planned Parenthood organ catalog.
Who are they to impose their religious beliefs on the people of Idaho? Dawned Satanists, always bossing people around, intruding into their lives.
They’re not trying to impose their beliefs on anyone. They want the people of Idaho to stop imposing their beliefs on them.
Unfortunately for them, the 9th circuit agreed that they have not established standing. They have not shown how they are directly affected by this law.
The headline is misleading. As the article says, the 9th circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had not established standing, and therefore the court was correct in dismissing the suit.
The only cavil the 9th had was at dismissing it with prejudice. It said the court should have dismissed it without prejudice, just in case the plaintiffs ever do one day manage to gain standing.
If they were really Satanists, as opposed to simply being anti-Christian bigots that are abusing lefty judges to abolish our 1st Amendment Right to Free Exercise of Religion, they would be arguing that they have a 1st Amendment Constitutional Right to commit Murder.
After all, their “faith” calls on them to serve the Prince of Darkness and what could be more mainstream for them than murdering babies to ensure their place in the afterlife.
Satanists are not actual worshipers of “Satan”, a character invented by Christianity. They don’t believe in supernatural entities, and certainly not in evil. Their core belief is freedom of conscience, and opposition to Christian supremacy. They’re not bigots, just atheists who object to Christianity being imposed on everyone as the default religion. In a way they’re similar to Pastafarians, but expressing the same ideas in a different way.
If a pregnant satanist sees “abortion as an exercise of personal sovereignty and bodily autonomy” it sounds like they see the uterus as a foreign country and the fetus an undocumented alien.
Huh? That just makes no sense at all. How does a foreign country get in to the analogy?
The satanists are saying their bodies are sovereign, like an independent foreign state, with the right to murder or sell their babies.
Um, no. That is not what personal sovereignty means. At all.
If slavery is defined as a state won’t pay someone for being pregnant, definitions are up for grabs,
There is no ban on abortion for those who are ‘involuntarily pregnant’.
All state laws address this.
If you become pregnant against your will, you can get an abortion.
If, however, you are voluntarily engaging in the action whose sole biological purpose is impregnation and you don’t want to become pregnant but do, that is not ‘involuntary’
It can be ‘accidental’–but only if precautions were taken to avoid pregnancy and they failed.