Sobel v. Coleman (formerly Cameron)
Three Jewish women claim the state’s abortion ban scheme, which defines human life as beginning at fertilization, violates the state constitution’s prohibition on unintelligible laws because its application to in vitro fertilization is unclear, and religious liberties by inhibiting the Jewish duty to procreate and prioritizing Christian values. Trial court granted summary judgment for the state defendants for lack of standing, but Court of Appeals reversed as to one of the plaintiffs who has frozen embryos and has shown an interest in using them but confusion about her options.
On remand on the merits, the trial court found unconstitutionally void for vagueness the portion of the laws defining “human being” but did not find a religious liberties violation.
Related Commentary
Religious Freedom Claims Could Provide New Path to Protect Abortion Rights
Challenges to abortion bans by religious plaintiffs have had mixed results.