Is treating early-term abortion differently than other procedures an establishment clause violation?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Poll question: Is treating early-term abortion differently than other procedures an establishment clause violation?

Actions that claim to be public policy but are religiously driven violate the establishment clause. "Teaching both sides" on evolution fails as public policy because the courts recognize that the purpose is religious, even if the statute presents he matter as one of free-inquiry.

Is anti-choice primarily a religious movement? For government endorsement of an idea to be an Establishment Clause violation does not require that an idea be entirely, solely or uniquely religious. (A handful of scientists reject evolution on non-religious grounds but that does not make school evolution bans okay.)

Is there any compelling state interest to discriminate against abortions? Is there even a rational interest?

States said that blue laws (requiring businesses to close on the Sabbat... sorry, on Sunday) had a rational basis because everyone needs a day off and most folks are Christian so Sunday is a good day for it. That argument eventually failed and Jews were free to honor their sabbath while being open six days a week, just like Christians. (Jews held their own Sabbath, closing their stores on Friday night, then had the Christan sabbath mandated on them.)

Are there anti-choice arguments that are more persuasive as neutral public policy than blue laws and teaching intelligent design?

That's a lot of questions, so to return to the actual poll question:

Is treating early-term abortion differently than other procedures an establishment clause violation?

(I say early term because under Roe the legitimate state interest in early term abortions is held to be minimal, thus focusing the question.)

(reposted to fix earlier computer-garbled poll)

[Odin2005]

1. Yes. Anti-Choice rhetoric about "human life" is a euphemism for "soul"

They can't actually use the word "soul" because that would be a blatant violation, but everyone understands what they mean.

[sharesunited]

2. Seems to me you can be an atheist and hold an opinion about biology or the vesting of right to life.

And weighing the priority of right to life versus female sovereignty over her body.

These are all secular concerns with their own merit, absent religion.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Yes, just as some atheists reject evolution

States have gotten good at keeping religion out of textbook evolution bans and citing only some heterodox scientists but the courts recognize hostility to teaching evolution as widely religious in origin and effect.

That said, my question is highly debatable, hence its presentation as a poll.