It turns out that despite repeated defeats in the courts, Oklahoma has still not removed the Ten Commandments from the grounds of its capital building. The appeal by the state’s governor Mary Fallin to the state Supreme Court was rejected on July 27. Fallin then said that she had not received a direct order (from her god perhaps?) to remove the statue, clearly a stalling tactic to avoid taking any action.
Clearly the monument must be still there because on September 11, an Oklahoma county judge has given them a month to remove the monument. Maybe Fallin will take a cue from Kim Davis and go to jail for her right to ignore any court ruling that disagrees with her faith and call on the Oath Keepers to protect her.
Readers may recall it was the Satanist threat to put their own statue of Baphomet on the grounds of the monument were allowed that put this issue in the national spotlight. The Satanists are not resting on their laurels. They are now taking aim at Missouri’s abortion laws by bringing a lawsuit against the state’s mandated 72-hour waiting period.
The lawsuit is on behalf of a Satanic Temple member and Missouri resident using the pseudonym “Mary.”
It states that Mary, who is pregnant, went in May to Planned Parenthood with the intention of getting an abortion. She was told she had to wait 72 hours, at which point she presented a waiver from the Satanic Temple saying the waiting period violated her religious beliefs. She was still denied, prompting the lawsuit, according to Patheos.
According to the Star, the state countered that its current policy does not violate the First Amendment because while abortion providers by law must provide “informed consent” material to patients 72 hours before an abortion can be performed, “it does not compel these patents to accept, read or agree with” the information.
Greaves called this argument “absurd.”
“If the Court were to accept this argument, imagine the untenable and disastrous precedent it would set,” he wrote. “It would be analogous to a public school forcing Bibles upon children, but arguing their behavior isn’t problematic so long as they don’t explicitly require the Bibles actually be read.”
You can read more about the legal maneuverings here.