Columnist hypocritical on position
Last week the News and Tribune published an opinion piece by your regular contributor, John Krull.
Krull’s article claims that the organization he used to run, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana(ACLU-I), has come up with an “interesting” way of battling Indiana’s new law on abortion or — for the sake of clarity — Indiana’s law concerning the killing of babies in the womb.
Krull argues that one of the reasons that social conservatives passed the federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act(RFRA), was to allow Christians and other religious groups to refuse to participate in the killing of babies in the womb if they held that this — killing the baby — was against their religious beliefs. In this, Krull is correct. Christians can clearly demonstrate from their sacred texts that the baby in the womb is considered a unique, human life and that killing this innocent child is tantamount to murder. This we are forbidden to do according to our religion.
Krull says that the ACLU-I will claim that the RFRA should allow other people to violate Indiana’s law and be allowed then to kill babies in the womb. The argument of the ACLU-I, according to Krull, is that killing a baby in the womb is permitted to them as a part of their religious practice. Thus, he states proudly, turning the social conservatives’ argument on its head.
Three issues immediately arise from this argument, however.
The first — is Krull correct that the ACLU-I will be able to demonstrate in court that the killing of babies in the womb is actually a tenet of faith for an injured party? Is there someone who has standing to sue in court, claiming that their religion demands that they put to death the baby in their womb? Is there someone who can show that this law prohibits them from the “free exercise” of their religion so that this clause of the First Amendment could be put to the test? Remember, the “Free Exercise” clause only applies to what one is required by their faith, not just what one is permitted by their faith.
This leads to the second consideration. Does this religious freedom only apply to life in the womb? If this hypothetical person’s religion permitted or even required them to kill a human being once born, would Krull use this article to allow that as well? I don’t think so.
Krull might object — “This only applies to killing babies — oops, fetuses —because they do not have rights as human beings.” That’s a problematic position for someone from the left, since Roe v. Wade, the beloved Supreme Court ruling, specifically recognized the civil rights of the unborn fetus at a certain point in the pregnancy. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Casey went even further than Roe. Krull and the ACLU would have to argue that the RFRA allows murder in order to make their case if they want to retain these precedents.
Finally, Krull makes it clear in his editorial that the RFRA is bad law. He believes that people should be required to follow any law that the government makes no matter what their conscience or their God tells them. The Indiana Killing Babies in the Womb Law is a perfectly valid law, and by this reckoning, he should accept it and comply.
Let’s be honest, Krull does not care about the life of the baby in the womb. Krull does not like living in a state where a person may place his God over his country, nor does Krull like living in a state where his state can overrule him. Final conclusion, Krull places himself over God and country.
Jeff Roudenbush, Marengo