Separation of Church and State

The argument

Proponents of legal abortion argue that restrictions on it, even in countries and states that describe themselves as secular, are largely underpinned by religious belief — usually left implicit, but occasionally stated outright. The example offered is Alabama, which in 2019 enacted sweeping laws restricting abortion, allowing no exception even in cases of rape and incest. On signing the measure, Governor Kay Ivey said that 'this legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God.' The argument treats that justification as the decisive feature of the law rather than an incidental flourish. A statute defended on the ground that life is a sacred gift from God rests on nothing a citizen who does not share that belief could be expected to weigh; it rests on a doctrine. The absence of exceptions for rape and incest is read the same way, as the mark of a principle held absolutely because it is held as revelation, rather than a balance struck between competing secular interests. On this view the law's stated reason is its real reason, and that reason is a sectarian one. If so, proponents argue, such a law is fundamentally a contravention of the secular value of the separation of Church and State — the principle that a secular state does not enact one faith's convictions as binding on everyone within its jurisdiction. The state has no right to force religion on anyone, and least of all through restrictive laws trying to control what women do with their bodies, since the burden of the doctrine then falls on the individual woman rather than on any shared public interest. Where the only justification available for prohibiting abortion is a religious one, the secular state's default must be to leave the decision with the person whose body is at stake, which is to say that abortions should be legal.

Context

Many of those who are against abortions have stances rooted in religious texts and beliefs. Thus in secular states, deciding whether or not one should be allowed to have an abortion should ideally be backed by scientific and empirical evidence surrounding the benefits and drawbacks of legal abortion rather than being drawn by religious fervor.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Although a state itself may not be technically religious, religious politicians are elected to uphold their constituents' beliefs. Religious constituents who elect a religious candidate expect them to reflect this - this is not immoral, it's the politicians job.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Politicians in secular states do not have to completely reject religion if their citizens expect the politicians to reflect their beliefs.