Posted on Jan 23, 2023
Kansas City religious leaders sue over Missouri abortion ban: 'That doesn’t represent my faith'
1.26K
31
14
1
1
0
Leaders from 13 different religious organizations have joined a lawsuit filed by the National Women's Law Center and Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenging Missouri’s abortion laws. Two leaders from Kansas City say the trigger ban and other restrictions violate their congregations' religious freedom.
A lawsuit brought by an alliance of 13 religious leaders, along with The National Women’s Law Center and Americans United for Separation of Church, attempts to overturn Missouri’s nearly total abortion ban, which went into effect in June after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Two religious leaders from Kansas City have joined the suit, which was filed Thursday in St. Louis Circuit Court.
A lawsuit brought by an alliance of 13 religious leaders, along with The National Women’s Law Center and Americans United for Separation of Church, attempts to overturn Missouri’s nearly total abortion ban, which went into effect in June after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Two religious leaders from Kansas City have joined the suit, which was filed Thursday in St. Louis Circuit Court.
Kansas City religious leaders sue over Missouri abortion ban: 'That doesn’t represent my faith'
Posted from kcur.org
Religion
Abortion
Faith
Judaism
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
No I am not a lawyer but I know how to read the constitution. Pure interpretation is to keep the government out of establishing one religion. Last time I checked there wasn't a Church of Abortion.
Furthermore nowhere in the intitial Roe vs Wade or the THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, PETITIONERS v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FT AL. ruling never mention religion.
Furthermore nowhere in the intitial Roe vs Wade or the THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, PETITIONERS v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, FT AL. ruling never mention religion.
(6)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Thank you my friend and brother-in-Christ Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth for mentioning me. I concur with you.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
MOOT argument. The seperation of church and state has nothing to do with abortion. It only has to do with ensuring the government does not put one religionover another and establish one religion.
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/885/establishment-clause-separation-of-church-and-state
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.
(5)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Not imposing my beleifs...just interpreting the constitution...the left is making a religous issue out of it when SCOTUS has not...even the previous justices (Ginsburg for one) stated that ROE vs Wade was unconstitutional and belong to the states. States can do what they want but it was not a federal issue. That was the ruling...not because it was a religous issue but it was not a federal issue.
(2)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
Thank you my friend and brother-in-Christ Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth for mentioning me. I concur with you.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
SFC Fuerhoff...interpreting the constituion is not a religous act...it is just that reading and interpreting the constitution. People like you think that because you disagree and try to make it a religous issue of which it is not. The constitution is what it is and it is finally being read in the context of which it was written. No where in the comments from the Justices (if you read their briefs) does it mention religion or religous context...it states it is a matter for states to decide and not the nation...not a religous or Christian concept...a legal one and it it does not volate 1A.
(4)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Not gonna stop cause I am not behind. It is not banning those from having abortions...it simply moved it from the federal authority back to the states where it belongs according the constitution and that is not a religous issue since IT WAS NOT BANNED FEDERALLY. It was a legal read on the constitution and found to be a states issue. Women that want an abortion canhave it...if they live in a state that does not allow it they can travel to another to have it done.
As far as Greg goes. Since he is a lawyer you would think he would know the proper use of words before throwing them out there. There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. According to the definitions of Sharia it is based on the Koran and Islamiic canonical law and Christians do not follow the Koran nor Islamic law and therefore there is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. They are antithetical, I know it is a big word so let me define it for you as well..."antithetical - directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible." To put the two together is well...ok I guess for you since that is a typical lawyer move to just throw words around that don't have any relevance but sound big and important.
sha·ri·a /SHəˈrēə/ noun
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists.
As far as Greg goes. Since he is a lawyer you would think he would know the proper use of words before throwing them out there. There is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. According to the definitions of Sharia it is based on the Koran and Islamiic canonical law and Christians do not follow the Koran nor Islamic law and therefore there is no such thing as Christian Sharia law. They are antithetical, I know it is a big word so let me define it for you as well..."antithetical - directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible." To put the two together is well...ok I guess for you since that is a typical lawyer move to just throw words around that don't have any relevance but sound big and important.
sha·ri·a /SHəˈrēə/ noun
Islamic canonical law based on the teachings of the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet (Hadith and Sunna), prescribing both religious and secular duties and sometimes retributive penalties for lawbreaking. It has generally been supplemented by legislation adapted to the conditions of the day, though the manner in which it should be applied in modern states is a subject of dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and modernists.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
Lt Col Charlie Brown LTC Trent Klug MSgt John McGowan Cpl Vic Burk Sgt (Join to see) Cpl Vic Burk Sgt (Join to see) CWO4 Terrence Clark CPL Douglas Chrysler SGT Jim Arnold MSgt James Parker Sgt Robert Burlison LTC Stephen F. SGT Steve McFarland SGT Mark Anderson SMSgt Lawrence McCarter CMSgt (Join to see)
(4)
(0)
LTC Trent Klug
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth So the lawyer captain spouted a religious tenant where none existed before? I'm guessing this is going to be a new progressive buzzword.
(1)
(0)
Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth
LTC Trent Klug - Mope that is just him...he is an atheist and always try to insert religion where there is no basis. I ended up blocking him cause he came at me personally once and I just don't have time for that. Him or the SFC. THey were just fine with killing innocent children when they had the liberal interpreters on the constitution...now that we have folks actually interpreting the constitution instead of using it to make law fromthe bench it is all just wrong...oh well. I am done chasing him and SFC in the around about way here as well. Not worth my time.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google