(ANALYSIS) The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a Texas abortion law late last Wednesday night. Known as a “heartbeat bill,” this law would prohibit abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, which is when cardiac activity can generally be detected. The Texas legislators who drafted this law curated a novel and legally contested system to enforce it. 

How the Texas law works 

The Texas law was designed, as NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg noted, “to insulate the law from being tested quickly in court.” Rather than having state officials — the normal representatives — enforcing this law, the heartbeat law says that individual citizens can sue anyone aiding and abetting an abortion that occurs after the sixth week of pregnancy, including abortion clinic workers, would-be fathers and other family members of women receiving abortions. 

Notably, women seeking abortions themselves are exempt from liability under the Texas law. John Seago, legislative director of Texas Right to Life, helped design and advance this bill through the state legislature. Seago told Emma Green of the Atlantic, “We have categorically argued that women need to be treated differently than abortionists. Even with civil liability, we say that women cannot be the defendants.”

The conservative Supreme Court majority stated in its unsigned opinion that this decision did not “purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit.” In other words, the court refused to block this law on procedural grounds rather than “on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law.”

Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, along with the court’s three liberal justices. Roberts’ dissent made clear that he would have temporarily halted the law from being implemented because the structure of the law deputizes the “populace at large” rather than state officials to enforce it. He said this structure is “not only unusual but unprecedented.” Perhaps most importantly, although dissenting from the majority decision, Roberts reiterated that “the Court’s order is emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue.”

Faith voices respond 

Many faith leaders have responded positively to the new Texas law. 

Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, tweeted following the Texas heartbeat bill going into effect: “I love Texas! #Texasloveslife.” Other Hispanic Christian groups, such as the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, have remained silent on the recent implementation of the Texas law. 

Ryan Anderson, a leading Roman Catholic conservative and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, retweeted messages of unequivocal support for the Texas law from Roger Severino and Andrew Walker. In addition, he re-shared Jennifer Frey’s compelling words on the experience of her miscarriage: “No matter what your politics ... I don't think you can or should deny the humanity of the unborn. When we talk about abortion we are talking about two human beings. Proceed from that reality.”

Russell Moore, writing for Christianity Today, had this to say: 

“Roe is not gone—yet. And even if and when it does fall, pro-life Christians will have a task ahead that will be more difficult and more potentially meaningful than what we have seen so far. We will be seeking to persuade not only judges and justices or even just legislatures but also all of our neighbors of a vision where human life is defined not by power or usefulness but by intrinsic dignity. That will require those of us who are pro-life to be consistent in that vision and willing to break with our tribes and parties when they see human beings as dispensable or invisible.”

Could this law restrict religious freedom of individuals and congregations?

While many conservative Christians and other anti-abortion religious leaders have offered public support for the Texas heartbeat bill, some spiritual communities and faith leaders have raised concerns about the Texas law’s impact on their religious freedom to spiritually counsel pregnant women considering abortion. 

The novel structure of this law raises an interesting question: Could this law limit the capacity of religious and spiritual communities and leaders who perhaps take a complex or nuanced approach to abortion or who flat-out support women’s reproductive rights to counsel pregnant women based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.

If this law allows any private citizen to bring suit against any individual believed to be aiding and abetting an abortion, how could spiritual and religious communities and leaders who offer support and guidance to women facing unplanned pregnancies be impacted? Could privacy and trust be broken? Could sacred conversations based on spiritual and deeply personal discernment be exposed and legally punished? Will clergy and vulnerable women be more hesitant to reach out to give or receive help?

The Rev. Erika Forbes wrote for the Fort-Worth Star-Telegram, “As a clergy member who took a vow to listen and guide people on their spiritual and personal journeys, trust me when I tell you this law may even jeopardize the powerful and emotional conversations that take place between clergy members and their parishioners every single day.”

Leaders of Reform Jewish Movement institutions issued a statement with similar sentiments: “We are also deeply concerned about Jews who will be unable to pursue an abortion in keeping with Jewish law, which mandates abortion when necessary to preserve the pregnant person’s well-being.”

And yet, there are also many faith voices who are championing the protection of nascent life at six weeks while still emphasizing that a holistically anti-abortion response must go beyond laws such as the newly enacted Texas legislation.

Charles Camosy, a prominent anti-abortion moderate Catholic, recently retweeted a comment from Kathryn Jean Lopez, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute: “Critical point. The law isn’t enough. Let women know what the resources are. Support them. Be open about your love and nonjudgmental willingness to help.”

Let’s pray there are religious and spiritual leaders and institutions on all sides of this issue willing to offer vulnerable women and their unborn babies social, spiritual and material support that will encourage them not only to choose life but to live it abundantly, for them and their children. 

Chelsea Langston Bombino is a believer in sacred communities, a wife and a mother. She serves as a program officer with the Fetzer Institute and a fellow with the Center for Public Justice.