How the Satanic Temple is using ‘abortion rituals’ to claim religious liberty against the Texas’ ‘heartbeat bill’

 

Two women hold mock pro-life signs in what they call an ‘Abortrait room’ at the Satanic Temple’s headquarters to protest abortion laws. Joseph Prezioso / AFP via Getty images

Texas’s controversial anti-abortion law known as the “Heartbeat Bill” went into effect at midnight on Sept. 1, 2021. Less than 24 hours later, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it would not block the law.

In response, The Satanic Temple, a nontheistic group that has been recognized by the IRS as a religion, announced that it would fight back by invoking the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, to demand exemption from abortion restrictions on religious grounds. RFRA laws, which came into effect in 1993, restrict the government’s ability to burden religious practices.

Like the Heartbeat Bill itself, The Satanic Temple’s efforts to circumvent abortion restrictions on religious grounds involve a creative and complicated legal strategy. As a scholar who studies the ways in which The Satanic Temple’s provocations affect public debates about religious freedom, I anticipate their latest legal argument will challenge some assumptions about RFRA and the freedoms it was designed to protect.

The Heartbeat Bill

In the pivotal 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, the Supreme Court established that abortion is a Constitutional right. However, states can still pass laws that severely restrict access to abortion. The question is how severely.

Texas’s new law was designed to effectively shut down all abortion while protecting the state from judicial review.

First, the bill bans abortion after six weeks – the point at which Texas lawmakers claim a fetus’s heartbeat can be detected. Most women are not aware they are pregnant before six weeks, and Texas abortion providers estimate 85% of abortions in the state are performed after this period.

Second, the law allows anyone to sue those they can accuse of “aiding and abetting” an abortion for US$10,000. Critics of the law claim this is an intimidation tactic designed to threaten the clinics with so much potential liability that legal abortion becomes impossible.

But outsourcing enforcement to the public is also intended to protect the state. Proponents of the bill claim that since no state official is enforcing the law, abortion providers have no one to sue.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division v. Smith considered arguments that a member of the Native American Church had a religious right to use peyote, a controlled substance.

The court ruled that freedom of religion was no excuse from compliance with a generally applicable law – a law that applies equally to everyone and does not single out specific groups. With this decision, it appeared that the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment meant very little.

In response, Congress wrote the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law in 1993.

Under RFRA, the government cannot burden the free exercise of religion unless: 1) it has a compelling reason for doing so, and 2) the government acts in the least restrictive way possible to achieve its purpose.

Four years later, in Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled that RFRA applied only to the federal government and not to individual states. So many states, including Texas, passed similar legislation, sometimes called “mini-RFRAs.”

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that under RFRA, the federal government could not require the Christian company Hobby Lobby to fund insurance that provided their employees with certain forms of birth control. This decision inspired The Satanic Temple by linking the question of religious liberty with that of reproductive rights.

The Satanic Temple and RFRA

The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets include the belief that one’s body is subject to one’s own will alone. AP Photo/Hannah Grabenstein

The Satanic Temple began in 2013 and has launched a number of political actions and lawsuits related to the separation of church and state. Texas is home to four congregations of The Satanic Temple, more than any other state.

Although The Satanic Temple does not believe in or worship a literal Satan, they revere Satan as described in the works of English poet John Milton and the Romantic movement, an intellectual movement that originated in late 18th-century Europe, as a powerful symbol of rebellion against authority.

The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets include the belief that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” It interprets state restrictions on abortion access as a burden on this sincerely held religious belief.

In 2015, The Satanic Temple began a series of lawsuits against the state of Missouri, where women seeking abortions must view sonograms and then review a booklet stating, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” After this, the women must spend 72 hours considering their decision before finally receiving an abortion.

The Satanic Temple argued that this practice was an unconstitutional effort by the state to impose its religious views onto vulnerable women. Furthermore, it claimed that under Missouri’s RFRA law, Satanic women could not be forced to comply with these procedures. Instead of answering whether RFRA protected members of The Satanic Temple from abortion restrictions, the court dismissed these cases on procedural grounds.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that since the plaintiff, a woman known as “Mary Doe,” was no longer pregnant by the time her case wound its way through the courts, she no longer needed an abortion and therefore had no legal standing to sue. The Satanic Temple appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it.

To prevent similar rulings, ministers for The Satanic Temple created an “abortion ritual,” in which a woman affirms her own autonomy, obtains an abortion, and then concludes the ritual.

Since abortion is part of the ritual, The Satanic Temple argues, subjecting a woman to a waiting period is akin to the government interfering with a baptism or communion. In February 2021, The Satanic Temple filed a new lawsuit against Texas, arguing that the state was violating the religious liberty of its new plaintiff, referred to as “Ann Doe.”

The devil is in the details

The Satanic Temple raises important questions about what counts as a religion. Opponents of the group argue that abortion is a medical procedure, not a protected religious practice. But The Satanic Temple’s lawyer, Matthew Kezhaya, points to a 2009 case, Barr v. City of Sinton, in which Texas pastor Richard Barr was told the halfway house he operated violated a zoning ordinance.

The Texas Supreme Court ruled that excluding Barr’s halfway house from the city violated Texas’s RFRA law. Key to this argument was the court’s statement that, “The fact that a halfway house can be secular does not mean that it cannot be religious.” Likewise, Kezhaya argues, abortion can be both secular and religious, depending on context.

Kezhaya also disagrees that outsourcing the enforcement of abortion to private lawsuits makes the state of Texas immune to judicial review. He compared this situation to “racially restrictive covenants” of the Jim Crow era in which white residents signed legal agreements never to sell or rent their homes to African Americans.

The Supreme Court initially declined to hear cases challenging these covenants because they were considered private contracts. But in 1948, it ruled that a court enforcing these contracts was a state action that violated the 14th Amendment.

The Satanic Temple also has an even more creative strategy. The Food and Drug Administration, which controls the distribution of the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol, is subject to the federal RFRA law. The Satanic Temple sent a letter to the FDA explaining that its prescription requirements illegally burden their abortion ritual. Currently, these drugs are only available with a doctor’s prescription, and the doctor must adhere to any state restrictions before providing them.

The Satanic Temple proposed an accommodation in which Satanic women can obtain a doctor’s note indicating only that these medications are safe for them to use, and then receive medication directly from The Satanic Temple rather than a state-approved provider.

In an interview with me in September 2021, Kezhaya, The Satanic Temple’s lawyer, admitted this was experimental territory. Assuming a court approved this accommodation, it could legally make The Satanic Temple a pharmacy, in addition to a religious entity, because it would be distributing controlled medications.

Is RFRA a “loophole?”

The Satanic Temple’s opponents claim it is abusing RFRA and using it as a “loophole” to circumvent the law. However, Lucien Greaves, a co-founder of The Satanic Temple, counters that RFRA was always intended to protect religious minorities from the government. If anyone is abusing it, he claims, it is companies like Hobby Lobby that invoked it to restrict the choices of their employees.

Critics of RFRA, such as legal scholar Marci Hamilton, warn that religious exemptions can turn the law into “Swiss cheese.” In other words, there could be so many religious loopholes that laws become meaningless. Whether or not this is a serious concern, it is certainly true that RFRA must not benefit only the Christian majority.

This is why constitutional law professor Jay Wexler has encouraged the work of groups like The Satanic Temple, stating, “Only by insisting on exercising these rights can Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and everybody else ensure that the Court’s new religious jurisprudence does not result in a public space occupied exclusively by Christian messages and symbols. At stake is nothing less than our national public life.”

Joseph P. Laycock, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Texas State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Surprise! There might be salmonella in your chocolate

 

Shutterstock

In the past three months, more than 150 cases of salmonella food poisoning across Europe have been linked to Kinder chocolate products. Most of the cases have been in children under ten years old.

Health officials have traced the outbreak to bad milk in a factory in Belgium, and many products have been recalled from shelves as Easter approaches.

As consumers, we often think of the risk of food poisoning from raw or under-cooked meat, leftovers or even packaged salad. It’s less common to worry about chocolate.

Salmonella outbreaks in chocolate

While reports of salmonella bacteria in chocolate are not common, there have been several high-profile outbreaks. Most documented cases of salmonellosis have been in Europe and North America, perhaps because chocolate consumption is high and monitoring and surveillance is in place.

Outbreaks include:

• 1970: cocoa powder contaminated with salmonella was used in confectionery products and subsequently caused an outbreak that affected 110 people in Sweden

• 1973–74: 95 cases of salmonellosis, acquired from Christmas-wrapped chocolate balls, were reported in Canada and another 30 in the United States

• 1982–83: a salmonella outbreak involving 245 people in the United Kingdom was traced to two types of chocolate bars produced in Italy

Salmonella outbreaks linked to chocolate. David Bean, Author provided

• 1985–86: 33 cases of gastroenteritis due to salmonella were reported in Canada and the US, and eventually traced back to chocolate coins imported from Belgium

• 1987: 361 confirmed cases of salmonellosis in Norway and Finland were part of an outbreak linked to chocolate contaminated with salmonella (it is estimated the actual number of infections was 20,000-40,000)

• 2001–02: an outbreak of salmonella occurred in Germany, resulting in at least 439 reports of infection, traced to a specific brand of chocolate distributed exclusively through a single supermarket chain

• 2006: an outbreak in the UK was traced to chocolate, with 56 cases reported.

Why do salmonella outbreaks occur?

Chocolate begins its life as various agricultural products, the most important of which is cacao. Much of the world’s cacao comes from small farms in West Africa.

Beans from the cacao tree are harvested, fermented and dried on these farms. There are plenty of opportunities for the beans to become contaminated with salmonella from animals and the environment.

When the beans reach a chocolate factory, they are roasted. This will kill any salmonella on the beans. But if salmonella is present on the raw beans it can potentially be a source of contamination.

It is important raw beans are well segregated from roast beans to prevent cross-contamination.

As well as this segregation, chocolate factories must be well maintained and have risk-control mechanisms in place. The 2006 outbreak in the UK, for example, was ultimately linked to water leaks from pipes onto chocolate.

Salmonella in chocolate

Even when chocolate is made using appropriate food safety techniques, it has inherent properties that make it very capable of spreading bacteria.

While salmonella will not grow in chocolate (there isn’t enough water), it survives in chocolate very well. Chocolate may even protect the salmonella during its passage through the gut.

Salmonella won’t grow in chocolate, but it survives there very well. Shutterstock

This means a batch of chocolate product contaminated with salmonella may remain a food safety risk for a long time and be distributed over a large geographical area. This explains why chocolate-related outbreaks can affect large numbers of people in multiple countries.

Another important consideration is who often consumes chocolate: children. Children are often disproportionately represented in these outbreaks and may be more susceptible to severe infections.

What can be done?

Most confectionery manufacturers operate under stringent guidelines to ensure quality and safety of their products. Good manufacturing processes and food safety guidelines are well established to ensure chocolate is safe.

Manufacturers would prefer to eliminate pathogens (disease causing microorganisms) such as salmonella in chocolate, or at least detect it during manufacturing.

However, the current Kinder recall and others like it are evidence of the system working, albeit late in the process. When a recall notice is issued, consumers should take the advice seriously.

So don’t put off a little Easter indulgence! In the absence of a recall notice in a specific product, it is safe to assume eating chocolate won’t make you sick – unless perhaps you over-indulge.

David Bean, Senior Lecturer in Microbiology, Federation University Australia and Andrew Greenhill, Associate Professor in Microbiology and Fermentation Technology, Federation University Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

FF Plus – ‘Horror of farm murders remains shocking, Jan Kempdorp’

 

Although farm murders often occur and the government does not consider them a priority crime, they remain shocking and unnecessary.

In the latest incident, Mr. Ernst Human was killed over the weekend at Jan Kempdorp in the Vaalharts area.

Mr. Human was part of a farm security group that was connected to each other by radio. Other group members investigated after he did not respond to his radio call.

The incident reiterates the vulnerability of people on farms and in rural areas, even within security groups.

The FF Plus’ prayers accompany Mr. Human’s loved ones.

Read: Farm murder, body of farmer discovered in his home, Jan Kempdorp

It was further reported in the media that Ernst Human was found with his hands and feet tied and then brutally murdered.

Read about more farm attacks here

Read the original article in Afrikaans by Dr. Wynand Boshoff on FF Plus

 SOURCE

 

How vulnerable is your personal information? 4 essential reads

 

Chances are some of your data has already been stolen, but that doesn’t mean you should shrug data breaches off. WhataWin/iStock via Getty Images

When you enter your personal information or credit card number into a website, do you have a moment of hesitation? A nagging sense of vulnerability prompted by the parade of headlines about data breaches and hacks? If so, you probably push those feelings aside and hit the submit button, because, well, you need to shop, apply for that job, file that insurance claim, apply for that loan, or do any of the other sensitive activities that take place online these days.

First, the bad news. If you regularly enter sensitive information online, chances are you’ve had some data stolen somewhere at some point. By one estimate, the average American had data stolen at least four times in 2019. And the hits keep coming. For instance, a data breach at the wireless carrier T-Mobile reported in August 2021 affected 100 million people.

Now for some good news. Not all hacks are the same, and there are steps you can take to protect yourself. The Conversation gathered four articles from our archives that illuminate the types of threats to your online data, what data thieves do with your stolen information, and what you can do about it.

1. Take stock of your risk

Not all cyberattacks are the same, and not all personal data is the same. Was an organization that has your information the victim of a ransomware attack? Chances are your information won’t be stolen, though the organization’s copy of it could be rendered unusable.

If an organization you deal with did have customer data stolen, what data of yours did the thieves get? Merrill Warkentin, a professor of information systems at Mississippi State University, writes that you should ask yourself some questions to assess your risk. If the stolen data was your purchase history, maybe that won’t be used to hurt you. But if it was your credit card number, that’s a different story.

Data breaches are a good opportunity “to change your passwords, especially at banks, brokerages and any site that retains your credit card number,” he wrote. In addition to using unique passwords and two-factor authentication, “you should also consider closing old unused accounts so that the information associated with them is no longer available.”

2. The market for your stolen data

Most data breaches are financial crimes, but the hackers generally don’t use the stolen data themselves. Instead, they sell it on the black market, usually via websites on the dark web, for other criminals and scammers to use.

This black market is awash in personal data, so much so that your information is probably worth a lot less than you would guess. For example, stolen PayPal account information goes for $30.

Buyers use stolen data in several ways, writes Ravi Sen, an associate professor of information and operations management at Texas A&M University. Common uses are stealing your money or identity. “Credit card numbers and security codes can be used to create clone cards for making fraudulent transactions,” he writes. “Social Security numbers, home addresses, full names, dates of birth and other personally identifiable information can be used in identity theft.”

The T-Mobile breach revealed in August 2021 exemplifies the challenges consumers face when hackers steal their information from large corporations.

3. How to prepare for the inevitable

With all this bad news, it’s tempting to throw up your hands and assume there’s nothing you can do. W. David Salisbury, a professor of cybersecurity management, and Rusty Baldwin, a research professor of computer science at the University of Dayton, write that there are steps you can take to protect yourself.

“Think defensively about how you can protect yourself from an almost inevitable attack, rather than assuming you’ll avoid harm,” they write. The key is focusing on the information that’s most important to protect. Uppermost are your passwords, particularly for banking and government services. Use different passwords for different sites, and use long – though not necessarily complicated – passwords, they write.

The most effective way to protect your data is to add another layer of security via multifactor authentication. And rather than rely on websites to text or email you authentication codes, which can be hijacked, you should use an app or USB device that uses public-key encryption, they write.

4. Don’t make it easy for the thieves

The risk to your personal information isn’t just having it stolen from a third party. Phishing attacks can get you to do the thieves’ work for them. These emails fool people into entering personal information and passwords on fake websites controlled by data thieves.

It turns out that you’re probably pretty good at sensing when something is off about an email message. Rick Wash, an associate professor of information science and cybersecurity at Michigan State University, found that the average person is as good as a cybersecurity expert at sensing when something is weird about an email message.

The trick to protecting yourself from phishing attacks is remembering that phishing exists and could explain what you’re sensing about an email message.

“The people who were good at noticing phishing messages reported stories about specific phishing incidents they had heard about,” he wrote. “Familiarity with specific phishing incidents helps people remember phishing generally.”

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

Eric Smalley, Science + Technology Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

How many satellites are orbiting Earth?

 

Thousands of the satellites orbiting Earth are small – like this cubical satellite seen here being released from the International Space Station. NASA, CC BY-NC

CC BY-ND

It seems like every week, another rocket is launched into space carrying rovers to Mars, tourists or, most commonly, satellites. The idea that “space is getting crowded” has been around for a few years now, but just how crowded is it? And how crowded is it going to get?

I am a professor of physics and director of the Center for Space Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Many satellites that were put into orbit have gone dead and burned up in the atmosphere, but thousands remain. Groups that track satellite launches don’t always report the same exact numbers, but the overall trend is clear – and astounding.

Since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik – the first human-made satellite – in 1957, humanity has steadily been putting more and more objects into orbit every year. Over the the second half of the 20th century, there was a slow but steady growth, with roughly 60 to 100 satellites launched yearly until the early 2010s.

But since then, the pace has been increasing dramatically.

By 2020, 114 launches carried around 1,300 satellites to space, surpassing the 1,000 new satellites per year mark for the first time. But no year in the past compares to 2021. As of Sept. 16, roughly 1,400 new satellites have already begun circling the Earth, and that will only increase as the year goes on. Just this week, SpaceX deployed another 51 Starlink satellites into orbit.

The ever-shrinking size of technology has led to tiny satellites like the one students are working on here. Edwin Aguirre/University of Massachusetts Lowell, CC BY-ND

Small satellites, easy access to orbit

There are two main reasons for this exponential growth. First, it has never been easier to get a satellite into space. For example, on Aug. 29, 2021, a SpaceX rocket carried several satellites – including one built by my students – to the International Space Station. On Oct. 11, 2021, these satellites will deploy into orbit, and the number of satellites will increase again.

The second reason is that rockets can carry more satellites more easily – and cheaply – than ever before. This increase isn’t due to rockets getting more powerful. Rather, satellites have gotten smaller thanks to the electronics revolution. The vast majority – 94% – of all spacecraft launched in 2020 were smallsats – satellites that weigh less than around 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms).

The majority of these satellites are used for observing Earth or for communications and internet. With a goal of bringing the internet to underserved areas of the globe, two private companies, Starlink by SpaceX and OneWeb together launched almost 1,000 smallsats in 2020 alone. They are each planning to launch more than 40,000 satellites in the coming years to create what are called “mega-constellations” in low-Earth orbit.

Several other companies are eyeing this US$1 trillion market, most notably Amazon with its Project Kuiper .

Large satellite constellations – like SpaceX’s Starlink, seen in the video above – are set to dramatically increase the number of objects orbiting Earth and are already causing problems.

A crowded sky

With the huge growth in satellites, fears of a crowded sky are starting to come true. A day after SpaceX launched its first 60 Starlink satellites, astronomers began to see them blocking out the stars. While the impact on visible astronomy is easy to understand, radio astronomers fear they may lose 70% sensitivity in certain frequencies due to interference from satellite megaconstellations like Starlink.

Experts have been studying and discussing the potential problems posed by these constellations and ways the satellite companies could address them . These include reducing the number and brightness of satellites, sharing their location and supporting better image-processing software.

As low-Earth orbit gets crowded, concern about space debris increases, as does a real possibility of collisions.

Future trends

Less than 10 years ago, the democratization of space was a goal yet to be realized. Now, with student projects on the Space Station and more than 105 countries having at least one satellite in space, one could argue that that goal is within reach.

Every disruptive technological advancement requires updates to the rules – or the creation of new ones. SpaceX has tested ways to lower the impact of Starlink constellations, and Amazon has disclosed plans to de-orbit their satellites within 355 days after mission completion. These and other actions by different stakeholders make me hopeful that commerce, science and human endeavors will find sustainable solutions to this potential crisis.

Supriya Chakrabarti, Professor of Physics, University of Massachusetts Lowell

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.