Indiana Court Wrongly Expands Religious Freedom to Include Abortion Rights
Source: Frank DeVito. "Indiana Court Murders Law To Call Abortion 'Religious Exercise'." March 18, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that an Indiana court wrongly decided that abortion can be a religious practice protected by religious freedom laws. He believes this decision is based on bad science, a corrupted definition of religion, and dangerous legal reasoning that could lead to even worse outcomes.
Conclusion
The Indiana trial court's decision that abortion may be part of religious exercise under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is legally and morally wrong and represents a dangerous expansion of religious freedom protections.
Premises
- The plaintiffs' claim that a pre-viable fetus is 'part of the mother's body' is scientifically incorrect, as the unborn child has distinct DNA from conception
- The definition of religion has been improperly expanded beyond its founding-era meaning of 'duty which we owe to our Creator' to include non-theistic belief systems
- Accepting arbitrary distinctions about when a fetus becomes a separate person creates a slippery slope that could justify infanticide
- Indiana has a compelling government interest in protecting innocent unborn life that should override religious freedom claims
- Indiana's own abortion law exceptions for rape and incest undermine its argument about having a compelling interest in protecting all unborn life
- The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was never intended to protect the right to kill unborn children
- Killing an innocent child cannot constitute legitimate religious exercise under any proper understanding of religion
Assumptions
- There is an objective, scientifically-based definition of when human life begins (at conception)
- Religion should be defined according to founding-era understanding requiring belief in a Creator
- Unborn children have the same moral status and right to life as born humans
- Religious freedom protections should not extend to practices that harm others
- Legal consistency requires that exceptions to laws be principled rather than arbitrary