In an Unprecedented Move, Jewish Federation of Cleveland Takes a Public Position on an Abortion-related Issue

Urges Governor Kasich to veto the pending heartbeat abortion ban bill.

Federation’s full public statement:

Act Now: Veto the Fetal Heartbeat Bill

Action Alert

Join the Federation in opposing the enactment of the Fetal Heartbeat Bill in Ohio, which would ban almost all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected (about six weeks following conception). Though historically, the Jewish Federation of Cleveland has not taken a stance on reproductive policy, in light of the extreme nature of the Fetal Heartbeat Bill, we are compelled to oppose the bill. This bill imposes excessive restrictions that would strictly limit a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, even under circumstances resulting from mental health, and improperly ignores religious concerns. It takes medical decisions out of the hands of doctors by criminalizing those medical practitioners who perform procedures outside the narrow prescriptions of the bill.

If signed into law by Governor Kasich, Ohio would have the most restrictive abortion bill in the nation. According to legal experts, the law likely will be ruled unconstitutional.

Call Governor Kasich today at 614-466-3555 to make your opposition known.

Stephen H. Hoffman, President
Gary L. Gross, Board Chair
Cheryl Davis, Community Relations Committee Chair

In a patch.com article, the background on the Federation’s position is explained: The Federation has never before issued a statement about abortion, but felt this new bill would threaten Jewish religious freedom (patch.com).

Chavie (Jessica) Cohen, Managing Director of the Community Relations Committee at the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, who is quoted in the Patch article, added the following for Local Jewish News readers.

The impetus to us issuing this statement was the lack of religious exemption in this bill. As it was passed, the bill does not allow a Rabbi’s ruling to supersede the law in that rare case where necessary, and so restricts the religious freedoms of Orthodox and other practicing Jews. For this reason, the Jewish Federation of Cleveland developed this statement.

Also, this is the first time the Federation has ever spoken out on the position of abortion. That’s specifically because the Federation takes its responsibility to represent the entire Jewish community very seriously – including the views and positions of the Orthodox community. In this case, the lack of religious exemption speaks directly to us as a Jewish community and we were compelled to issue the statement.

Rabbi Yitz Frank, Ohio Director Agudath Israel of America, said “It is a complicated issue from a halachic perspective” and provided the following letter for Local Jewish News readers. (It was provided last year to members of the general assembly when the issue was originally being debated.)

Agudath Israel of America on Abortion:

October 20, 2015

Agudath Israel of America on Abortion

Jewish tradition teaches that all human life is sacred and a human fetus has status and dignity. Termination of pregnancy therefore raises profound moral concerns. Agudath Israel of America has long opposed the central holding of Roe v. Wade, that the right to abortion protected under the Fourteenth Amendment’s personal liberty/due process clause is uniformly “fundamental,” and thereby protected against governmental abridgment absent a compelling state interest.

At the same time, as a representative of a religious minority community whose constituents rely heavily on the religious freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment, Agudath Israel is a staunch advocate of religious liberty for all Americans. As a general rule, Judaism rejects the notion that termination of pregnancy, even prior to fetal viability, is properly a matter of free maternal choice. Nonetheless, in certain exceptional cases, Jewish law may authorize abortion, indeed, may require abortion as a matter of religious obligation. Accordingly, in conjunction with its opposition to legalized abortion on demand, Agudath Israel has supported a woman’s legal right to abortion where she seeks the abortion as an expression of her religious faith.

The central premise of Agudath Israel’s position is that characterization of the right to abortion as “fundamental” need not be a matter of always or never. In most cases, where the sole constitutional source of the claimed right to abortion is the personal liberty/privacy right developed in Roe v. Wade, the right to abortion should not be accorded the status of a “fundamental” right. Accordingly, legislative measures designed to restrict the availability of abortion should generally be upheld even in the absence of any compelling state interest, so long as there is a rational basis for the legislation.

There are times though when a woman’s claimed right to an abortion is grounded not only in her personal liberty/privacy right, but also in another constitutionally protected interest. For example, for a state to deprive a woman the right to an abortion even where continuing a pregnancy threatens her life, it is not merely to deprive her of some vague sense of a personal liberty “interest”; it is literally to deprive her of the “life” the Fourteenth Amendment expressly protects. Surely a strong case can be made that abortion in such cases is a right that is “fundamental”.

Additionally, when abortion is an expression of the mother’s religious beliefs, her constitutional claim is enhanced by her right to freely exercise her religion. In such cases, access to abortion is indeed a right that is “fundamental,” and may not be abridged, absent a countervailing compelling state interest.

We commend your efforts to protect the sanctity of life. However, in the context of the present legislation, we respectfully ask that an exception be made when an abortion is an expression of the mother’s sincerely held religious belief. For practitioners of the Jewish faith that would include where the pregnancy poses a risk to the life of the mother, and perhaps even if it poses a grave danger to her physical or mental health. We ask that you not force citizens to choose between following their religion and complying with the law. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.